Mega Offer Avail 65% Off in CA IPCC and 50% Off in all CA CS CMA subjects.Coupon- IPCEXAM65 & EXAM50. Call: 088803-20003

CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

M/S Rolex Steel & Engg Co, Mumbai ITO 19 (3)(1), Mumbai

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, 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 4538/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. 4538/MUM/2019
Assessment Year: 2011-12

M/s Rolex Steel & Engg Co.,
Room No. 7, Ground Floor,
Kisan Pahelwan, Bldg No. 80,
Sant Sena Maharaj Marg, 2nd
floor, Kumharwada,
Mumbai-400 004.
PAN No. AAIFR 2636 P
Appellant 

Vs.

ITO 19(3)(1),
Matru Mandir,
Mumbai-400 007.
Respondent

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

Date of Hearing : 02/03/2021
Date of pronouncement : 05/03/2021

 ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, 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 11.01.2021 and 02.03.2021, neither the assessee nor its 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 hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR).

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

1. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and therefore rendering the whole reassessment bad in law and also on the basis of borrowed satisfaction,
presumption and surmises.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in adding Rs.5,86,587/- as alleged Non-genuine purchases being 12.5% of the total purchases amounting to Rs.46,92,697/-. 

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 16 March 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 51
downloaded 41 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags