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

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Rolex Steel & Engg Co for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal concerned reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act. Neither the assessee nor their representative appeared for multiple hearings, leading to the dismissal due to non-compliance. The grounds of appeal included challenges to the reassessment order and the addition of Rs. 5,86,587 for alleged non-genuine purchases.

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