Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune

Dinesh Mohanlal Nahar, (Huf),, Pune vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3),, Pune on 15 November, 2018

 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
          PUNE BENCH "SMC", PUNE

     BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT

            आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 03/PUN/2018
            िनधा रण वष  / Assessment Year : 2011-12


Dinesh Mohanlal Nahar (HUF),                    ITO, Ward-6(3),
Prop. M/s. Patel Metal             Vs.          Pune
Industries, 715,
Guruwar Peth,
Pune - 411 002

PAN : AAAHD8171K

     (Appellant)                                  (Respondent)

 Appellant by               None
 Respondent by              Shri Rajesh Gawli

 Date of hearing            14-11-2018
 Date of pronouncement      15-11-2018

                        आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 10-10-2017 passed by the CIT(A)-13, Pune in relation to the A.Y. 2011-12.

2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.1,45,485/-, being alleged bogus purchases u/s.69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called as 'the Act').

ITA No.03/PUN/2018

Dinesh Mohanlal Nahar (HUF)

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the AO got information from the office of Principal DIT (Investigation), Mumbai regarding the assessee being one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries from M/s. Rajan Gems amounting to Rs.1,45,485/-. Based on it, a notice u/s.148 was issued and an addition of Rs.1,45,485/- was made, which came to be upheld in the first appeal.

4. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee. The notice sent through the Registered Post has been returned by the postal authorities with remarks "Not in given address". Under such circumstances, I am proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

5. It is seen that the impugned addition is based on an information received from the DIT(I) about the assessee, being, a beneficiary of accommodation entry of purchase. No material was placed either before the AO or the First Appellate Authority to controvert this information. In the absence of any evidence being placed before me as well, I am convinced that 3 ITA No.03/PUN/2018 Dinesh Mohanlal Nahar (HUF) the ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition. I, therefore, uphold the same.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th November, 2018.

Sd/-

(R.S.SYAL) उपा य / उपा य VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune;

दनांक Dated : 15th November, 2018 सतीश आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy षत of the Order is forwarded to:

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant;

2. यथ / The Respondent;

3. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-13, Pune

4. आयकर आयु / The Pr. CIT-3, Pune

5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे "SMC" / DR 'SMC', ITAT, Pune;

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

// True copy / आदेशानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पु णे / ITAT, Pune 4 ITA No.03/PUN/2018 Dinesh Mohanlal Nahar (HUF) Date

1. Draft dictated on 14-11-18 Sr.PS

2. Draft placed before author 15.11.18

3. Draft proposed & placed before the -

second member

4. Draft discussed/approved by Second -

Member.

5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS

6. Kept for pronouncement on

7. File sent to the Bench Clerk

8. Date on which file goes to the AR

9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.

10. Date of dispatch of Order.

*