ITO-20 (2)(4), Mumbai M/S National Engineering Works, Mumbai

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal case involves an appeal by the Revenue against M/s National Engineering Works for the assessment year 2009-10. The Revenue contested the relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding additions for alleged bogus purchases. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, leading the tribunal to decide based on available records and the Departmental Representative's arguments.

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. 5196/MUM/2019
Assessment Year: 2009-10

ITO-20(2)(4),
Room No. 220, 2nd, floor,
Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug,
Parel,
Mumbai-400012.
PAN No. AAAFN 0629 G
Appellant 

Vs.

M/s National Engineering
Works,
19, Atlas Mills Compound, Opp.,
Reay Road,
Mumbai-400 008
Respondent

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

Date of Hearing : 04/03/2021
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 the assessment 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 04.03.2021, neither theassessee nor his authorized representative appeared before the Bench onthe above date. As there is non-compliance by the assessee, we areproceeding 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.5,39,483/- by restricting the addition to 6% of the alleged bogus purchase from hawala parties.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failedto appreciate the fact that the onus is on the assessee to explain and substantiate the genuineness and the true nature of the purchase transaction. 

To know more in details find the attachment file