TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer 29(1)(1), Mumbai u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 24.02.2016 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds taken by the Assessee are reproduced as under: "1) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act upholding the Order passed by Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act is bad in law, void ab initio, in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. 2) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)/A.O. have erred in making the addition of Rs. 17,00,076 as bogus purchases u/s 69C of the Act without providing a cross examination opportunity and without pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment, Mumbai that assessee had obtained accommodation bills of purchase amounting to Rs. 17,00,074/- from the following two parties, assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 25.06.2024. The details of the two parties is tabulated below: Sr. No. Name of Sellers Amount 1 Rajeshwar Trading Pvt. Ltd. 35, Dr M G Mahimutra Rd., Goyanka Bhavan, 2nd Flr, Room No.16,3rd Kumbharwada, Mumbai -400 004 VAT-27480388751V 8,51,204 2 Navoday Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. B/403, Sai Saaj, Shop No.9, Plot No.3, Sectore-5, New Panvel (E)-410 206 VAT-27470563502V 8,48,872 Total: 17,00,076 4. According to the Ld.AO, name of the assessee appears in the list as one of the benefi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been declared as "Hawala dealers" by the Sales Tax Department. 2. The assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the identity of the purchase parties. 3. Further the assessee has merely produced the purchase bills. The assessee has not been able to establish the genuineness of these purchases. 4. The assessee has not been able to produce the following: 1. Delivery challan ii. Octroi receipt etc. 5. The regular purchases bills are usually accompanied by: (a) excise invoice/custom invoice, (b) order number Whereas, the purchases booked through parties declared as "Hawala dealers" by the Sales Tax were not accompanied by the above documents. 6. The assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... than 20.53% (17,42,939 + Rs. 17,00,076 34,43,015/1,67,67,645*100) on the said total sales which is very much unreasonable, unrealistic and impossible to get especially in the kind of business run by the assessee." 7. Assessee also pointed out that in the case of his wife Smt. Aditi Ajit Joshi, on identical fact, in her assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 147 of the Act, vide order dated 16.03.2015 for AY 2009-10, there was similar purchase of Rs. 47,42,452/- on which an addition was made applying 12.5% as quantum of profit element involved on unaccounted implantation of said purchases. Thus, amount of Rs. 5,92,806/- was disallowed and added to the income of the spouse of the assessee. Copy of said assessment order is placed in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. 9. Ld. SR DR refereed to decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Kanak Impex (India) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom) to sustain the addition in the hands of the assessee. 10. For the reliance placed by Ld. SR DR on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (supra) calling for sustaining the addition of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases made by the Ld.AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), we have perused this aforesaid judgment. We observe that in para 4, Hon'ble Court noted the factual position that assessee did not appear before the Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings and failed to prove the genuineness of the purcha....