ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

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

LinkedIn


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 the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

Citation :
ITA 5196/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. 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
 

 

Guest
on 16 March 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 56
downloaded 43 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags