IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH

OM PRAKASH KANT (A.M.) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (J.M.)

Bharat Devshi Dagha v. ITO

ITA No. 3314/Mum/2023 and 3315/Mum/2023

7 February, 2024

Appellant by: Kalpesh Khatri, CA

Respondent by: Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR

OM Prakash Kant, A.M.

These appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-11 (in short the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. As facts and circumstances and the issue involved in both these appeals being common, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience.

2. The grounds raised in both the appeals being identical except difference of the amount involved, for sake of brevity, the ground raised in assessment year 2009-10 are only reproduced as under:

1. On the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 12,89,039, on account of purchase treated as income from Hawala dealers as per the information provided by Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which is bad in law.

2. On the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying proprietary business under the name and style of M/s Robin International. The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2009-10 on 27.09.2009 and for assessment year 2010-11 on 23-9-2010, declaring total income of Rs. 2,67,352 and Rs. 3,10,624 respectively.