ITO-20(1)(3), Mumbai Mr. Bherchand Tikam Chand Jain, Mumbai

Last updated: 16 March 2021

Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of theassessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

Citation :
ITA 5182/MUM/2019

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

BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND
SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

ITA No. 5182/MUM/2019
Assessment Year: 2009-10

ITO-20(1)(3),
Room No. 114, 1st floor,
Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug,
Mumbai-400012.
Appellant
PAN No. AETPJ 2091 M

Vs.

Mr. Bherchand Tikamchand Jain,
46/50, Off. No.-16, 1st floor, Kika
Street, CP Tank Road,
Mumbai-04
Respondent

Revenue by : Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, DR
Assessee by : None

Date of Hearing : 03/03/2021
Date of pronouncement : 05/03/2021

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of theassessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

Though the case was fixed for hearing on 13.01.2021 and 03.03.2021, neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared before theBench on the above dates. As there is non-compliance by the assessee, we are proceeding to dispose off this appeal after examining the materials available on record and after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR).

2. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue read as under :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A)has erred in granting relief of Rs.5,87,308/- by restricting the addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchase from hawala parties.

To know more in details find the attachment file