9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice we condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and the appeal is heard on merits. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s Dev Engineers engaged in Civil Construction work. During the year the AO was in receipt of information from the sales Tax Department that the following 10 parties from whom the assessee had purchased material were suspected to be only engaged in providing accommodation entries. Sr.No. Name of the party Amount 1 Nirmal Trading Co. 1,15,425/- 2 Vani Enterprises 5,23,404/- 3 Gadadhar Trading Co. 5,06,02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the appellant. While the grounds of appeal are two separate grounds dealing with addition of Rs. 92,40,232/- and addition of Rs. 2,33,36,015/-, during the course of appeal the appellant has filed common statement since the addition in both grounds is on account of non genuine purchases u/s.69C. The issues are being adjudicated separately since the facts of the case are slightly different in both the issues even though the main issue is regarding non genuine purchases. On ground No.1, the AO has made the addition on the ground that the appellant could not produce delivery challans, lorry receipts, the mode of 'transport of goods, evidence of payment of octori, stock register etc. and that the notices could not be served to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings of the Sales Tax Department and further follow up by the AO assumes significance. However, giving due credit to the fact that the appellant has also accepted in the same statement that he ploughed back the cash so generated into the business itself it is fair to decide that only profit element on this component should be brought to tax and it is decided that the profit of the appellant should be taken at 15%. It may be pointed out that the AO on his part has also not found conclusive evidence that the bogus bills used of such parties actually resulted in entire cash being siphoned out of the business of the appellant. The decision is taken relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchases made from alleged MVAT parties and took the disclosure of Rs. 20Crs in the AY 2012-13. The assessee has also offered the said sum of Rs. 20Crs as his income for AY 2012-13. A categorical finding has been recorded by CIT(A) to the effect that impugned purchase of Rs. 2,33,36,015/- was offered as income by the assessee in the assessment year 2012-2013. This finding of CIT(A) has not been controverted by learned DR by bringing any positive material on record. Since the assessee bonafidely offered the income of Rs. 20Crs in AY 2012-13 and also paid the due tax along with interest thereon, taxing the same in the impugned year will amount to double taxation of the same income. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
