IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.6060/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year 2011 12) Milan Sevantilal Doshi 2/B, Anand Ashram Marve Road, Malad (We). Appellant Mumbai 400 064 PAN AAAPD6222H v/s Income Tax Officer. Respondent Ward 30(2)(2), Mumbai Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Date of Hearing 03.09.2019 Date of Order 25.09.2019 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal by assessee is against order dated 6th August 2016, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 41, Mumbai, for assessment year 2011 12. 2. dispute in present appeal is confined to addition made on account of non genuine purchases. Of course, assessee has raised legal ground challenging validity of re opening of 2 Milan Sevantilal Doshi assessment under section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 3. When appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of assessee to represent case. Accordingly, I proceed to dispose off appeal ex parte qua assessee after hearing learned Departmental Representative and on basis of material on record. 4. Brief facts are, assessee is individual. For assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income on 30 th September 2011, declaring total income of ` 10,01,290. Assessment in case of assessee was originally completed under section 143(3) of Act vide order dated 18th March 2014, assessing total income of ` 10,41,960. Subsequently, on basis of information received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, and Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation bills provided by certain parties, Assessing Officer re opened assessment under section 147 of Act. In course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer called upon assessee to prove genuineness of purchases of ` 1,28,33,860, claimed to have been made from MICO Steels. Assessing Officer found that assessee is engaged in business of re selling DEPB 3 Milan Sevantilal Doshi license through his proprietorship concern M/s. Milan Overseas. In response to query raised by Assessing Officer, assessee furnished purchase bills, corresponding sale bill, ledger account copy, bank statement, etc. To further verify authenticity of assessee s claim, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of Act to selling party which returned back unserved. Though, Assessing Officer called upon assessee to produce concerned party or to provide its current address, however, assessee was unable to comply with aforesaid request of Assessing Officer. Thus, ultimately, Assessing Officer held that purchases claimed to have been made by assessee are not genuine. However, considering fact that assessee has shown corresponding sales, Assessing Officer disallowed amount of ` 12.5% out of purchases of ` 1,28,33,860, and added back to income of assessee. Though, assessee challenged aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he was not successful. 5. Heard learned Departmental Representative and perused material on record. Undisputedly, Assessing Officer had in his possession specific information indicating that assessee had shown purchases from party which has been identified as hawala operator by Sales Tax Department. Undisputedly, aforesaid information 4 Milan Sevantilal Doshi received by Assessing Officer is tangible material on basis of which Assessing Officer was competent to form belief that income has escaped assessment. That being case, there cannot be any question with regard to authority of Assessing Officer in re opening assessment under section 147 of Act. Having held so, now it is necessary to deal with merits of issue. Undisputedly, neither before Assessing Officer nor before learned Commissioner (Appeals) assessee was able to conclusively prove genuineness of purchases either by producing party or furnishing any confirmation from concerned party. Even assessee was unable to furnish latest address of party. Thus, source from which assessee had claimed to have made purchases remained unverified. In such circumstances, assessee s claim that purchases from concerned party are genuine is unacceptable. Of course, assessee had furnished quantitative details of purchase and sales for which Assessing Officer instead of adding entire purchases had restricted addition to profit element by estimating @ 12.5% of non genuine purchases. In my view, aforesaid decision of Assessing Officer is in accordance with view expressed by Tribunal in similar nature of cases, hence, requires no interference from this forum. Accordingly, 5 Milan Sevantilal Doshi addition made is sustained. Grounds raised by assessee are dismissed. 6. In result, appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 26.09.2019 Sd/- SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 26.09.2019 Copy of order forwarded to (1) Assessee (2) Revenue (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) DR, ITAT, Mumbai (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Milan Sevantilal Doshi v. Income-tax Officer, Ward30(2)(2), Mumbai