IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1. ITA No. 7714/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

&

2. ITA No. 7715/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

R. J. Corporation ITO-42(1)(4), Flat No. 102, Priya Prabha Kautilya Bhavan, Bldg, Daulat Nagar Road- Vs. Mumbai-400 051

10, Borivali (East), Mumbai-400 066.

PAN/GIR No. AAJFR8046C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], both dated 19.09.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for Assessment Years 2010–11 and 2011–12 respectively, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical and arise out of similar facts, they are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.

Facts of the Case

2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Building Material Supplier and allied services and follows mercantile system of accounting. For both the assessment years under consideration, information was received by the Assessing Officer from the Sales Tax Department and DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, to the effect that certain parties were engaged in issuing accommodation bills without actual delivery of goods and that the assessee was a beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills. On the basis of such information, the assessments for both years were reopened under section 147 of the Act after issuance of notices under section 148. The assessee filed responses treating the original returns as returns filed in response to notices under section 148. Statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1)

were issued and served.

3. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown purchases from parties declared as hawala dealers by the Sales Tax Department. Notices issued under section 133(6) were returned unserved. The assessee failed to produce the suppliers for verification and did not furnish delivery challans, transportation details or other primary evidences to establish the genuineness of purchases. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act. However, since the sales declared by the assessee were not doubted, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element embedded in such purchases at 12.5 percent and made additions accordingly. In the respective assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 20.11.2015, the additions were made on account of alleged bogus purchases by estimating profit at 12.5 percent.

4. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated in both the years and separate penalty orders dated 15.03.2019 were passed levying penalty at 100 percent of the tax sought to be evaded.

5. The assessee preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who, vide separate orders passed under section 250 of the Act, confirmed the penalties. The relevant particulars for each assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

assessment year are tabulated hereunder:

6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:

In ITA No. 7714/MUM/2025