2025 (12) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ten times. Despite repeated notices through RPAD and e-mail, none appeared for the assessee at any stage. 2.1. No adjournment request was filed either. It is also observed from the e-mail dated 06/03/2025 from ACIT -41(3)(1), Mumbai, who attempted to deliver the notice of hearing to the assessee physically. However, it is submitted that, the assessee has sold the Flat at 3/C/309, Vrindavan Raheja Township, Malad (E), Mumbai, and the current owner is unaware about the assessee. 2.2. Subsequently, the assessee on 18/09/2025 filed request from adjournment as he was under some medical treatment due to eye surgery. Considering the medical condition of assessee, the appeal was adjourned to 15/10/2025. However, on 15/10/2025 and thereafter ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Ld. AO treated the purchases as non-genuine and made 100% disallowance of Rs.26,49,280/- u/s 37(1), assessing total income at Rs.36,38,870/-. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted that the parties were listed as hawala operators but held that entire purchases could not be disallowed since the sales were not doubted. The CIT(A) restricted disallowance at 15% of bogus purchases and further directed the Ld. AO to verify the alleged purchase from SK Trading Co., granting part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in restrictin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Department and DGIT(Inv). The notices u/s 133(6) and summons u/s 131 returned unserved. Further the assessee neither produced the parties and nor any evidence in respect of the purchase from the four parties like transportation or delivery of goods, was furnished. Further, the assessee himself admitted during his statement u/s 131 that no material was supplied by these parties. The assessee also submitted that he did not have any transaction with S.K. Traders Co.. On these facts, the Ld. AO was justified in holding that the purchases from four parties excluding S.K. Traders to be entirely bogus that represented accommodation entries. The Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the specific findings of the Ld. AO and Investigation Wing and mechanically appli....