ITAT has upheld the order of CIT(A) "estimating profit @12.5% on the disputed (bogus) purchases".

Last updated: 22 January 2021

Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This is an appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant assessment year is2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out ofassessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961(the Act).Though the case was fixed for hearing on 21/09/2020, neither the assesseenor his Authorized Representative (AR) appeared before the Tribunal on theabove date.

Citation :
ITA No. 1561/MUM/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND
SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

ITA No. 1561/MUM/2019
Assessment Year: 2011-12

ITO-17(1)(1)
Room No.115, 1st Floor
Aaykar Bhawan
M.K.Road
Mumbai-400 020
PAN No. AAGPS3930H
Appellant

Vs.

Mr. Abhay Kantilal Shah
501, Giriraj Building
Sant Tukaram Road
Mumbai-400 009
Respondent

Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Uodal Raj Singh (DR)

Date of Hearing : 21/09/2020
Date of pronouncement : 24/09/2020

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant assessment year is2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out ofassessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961(the Act).Though the case was fixed for hearing on 21/09/2020, neither the assesseenor his Authorized Representative (AR) appeared before the Tribunal on theabove date. As there is non-compliance by the assessee, we are proceedingto dispose-off this appeal after examining the materials available on record and after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR).

To know more in details find the attachment file