ANIL K SHAH (HUF), Mumbai VS ITO WARD 23 (2)(1), Mumbai

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
ITA No. 214/MUM/2019
Assessment Year: 2009-2010

Shri Anil K. Shah (HUF),
703, Supershav, Nahur Road,
Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West),
Mumbai - 400080
PAN: AADHA5072M
(Appellant)

Vs.

The ITO Ward – 23(2)(1),
111, Matru Mandir,
Tardeo, Grant Road,
Mumbai
(Respondent)
&
ITA No. 215/MUM/2019
Assessment Year: 2009-2010

Shri Anil K. Shah,
703, Supershav, Nahur Road,
Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West),
Mumbai - 400080
PAN: AAPPS6042M
(Appellant)

Vs.

The ITO Ward – 23(2)(1),
111, Matru Mandir,
Tardeo, Grant Road,
Mumbai
(Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain (AR)
Revenue by : Shri Jernold Michel (DR)
Date of Hearing: 21/08/2020
Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2020

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

These appeals have been filed against the two orders dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-39 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment years 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee against the assessment orders passed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 and u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’). Since, these appeals pertain to the same person in the individual capacity and in the capacity of HUF and the issues involved are identical, these were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of for the sake of convenience.

ITA No. 214/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee carrying on the business as dealer in Iron and Steel, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 15.09.2009 declaring the total income of Rs. 7,92,587/- The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee had obtained accommodation bills from bogus dealers in order to inflate purchases. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 142 (1) of the Act, the authorized representative (AR) of the assessee appeared before the AO and furnished some of the details called for by the AO. Thereafter, neither the assessee nor the representative appeared before the AO any details/documents were furnished before the AO. Accordingly, the AO passed the assessment order on the basis material available on record and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 5,38,54,780/- after making various additions. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee partly allowed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

To know more in details find the attachment file