9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer having failed to appreciate that the appellant had substantiated the purchase made by way of substantive evidence such as inward records, delivery, bark payments etc. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not giving credence to the facts that some summons to the parties were returned as "Unclaimed" thereby justifying the existence of the party. 3. The CIT(A) failed to give weightage to the fact that when the very same parties have declared to the VAT authorities that they have given accommodation bills which also bear their respective VAT and CST registration number, their existence cannot be denied and hence their refusal to accept summons proves thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... change all or any above grounds or before the hearing of the appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2010 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 13,58,61,222/- alongwith audited statement of Account and Tax Audit Report in form No. 3CB & 3CD. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of developers and contractors. As per the information received from the Sales Tax Department Maharashtra Government, the assessee has taken hawala entries from various parties for bogus purchase. The assessee was found to purchase the material from sev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - to the income of the assessee which was confirmed by the CIT(A) in appeal. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee has produced the books of account and bills etc., but the same were not considered, therefore, the purchase was not bogus hence the addition is liable to be deleted. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the department has argued that the assessee failed to prove the purchase before the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the order of the AO hence appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. It is a case of bogus purchase in which the addition was made on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government. Subsequently, the notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Sand suppliers which lies at page 41 to 86 of the paper book and ledger account which lies at page 2 of the paper book. The assessing officer is hereby directed to examine this fact in the light of the evidence adduced by the assessee by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that if this addition has already been added the assessment year of 2009-10 then the same is not liable to be the part of the total amount to the tune of Rs. 57,96,338/-. The said addition would be double addition. The said amount after verification would be liable to be excluded from the amount of Rs. 57,96,338/- for the purpose of deciding the profit ratio @ 12.5% which has been adjudicated at the time of adjudication upon the issue n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
