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


Quick Summary
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench heard an appeal filed by the Revenue concerning Mr. Bherchand Tikamchand Jain for the assessment year 2009-10. The appeal challenged the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision to restrict an addition related to alleged bogus purchases from 'hawala' parties to 5%. Despite the assessee not appearing, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the available records.

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
 

FAQ :

The appeal concerned an addition made by the Revenue for alleged bogus purchases from 'hawala' parties, which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had restricted to 5%.

The appeal was filed by the Revenue (Income Tax Department).

The relevant assessment year was 2009-10.

No, neither the assessee nor their authorised representative appeared before the Tribunal on the scheduled hearing dates.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief of Rs. 5,87,308/- by restricting the addition.

 

Guest
Published in Income Tax
Views : 122
downloaded 226 times

Comments




CCI Pro



Company
23 July 2026
CA Inter

Vikram Jadhav and Company

Pune

CA Inter

View Details
Company
29 July 2026
Audit Executive

RBSM Corporate Advisors Private Limited

Pune

CA

View Details
Company
06 July 2026
Chartered Accountant (Indirect Taxation)

Gowra Ventures Pvt Ltd

Hyderabad

CA

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 16 July 2026
CA Article

Pipara & Co. LLP.

Mumbai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
13 July 2026
AVP / VP - PCG Advisory

Workforce Connect

Mumbai

MBA

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 15 July 2026
CA Articles

Kinjal H Shah & Co.

Mumbai

CA Foundation

View Details
Company
23 July 2026
Senior Accountant

Felicity Adobe LLP

Bengaluru

CA Inter

View Details
Company
31 July 2026
Senior Accountant - Bunia, Democratic Republic of Congo

AD GLOBAL LTD

Mumbai

B.Com

View Details
Follow