TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bogus purchases, but we found that in that case, the cost of construction shown by the assessee worked out to ₹ 2812.70, however, in the instant case the cost of construction has been shown by the assessee at a higher figure of ₹ 2958/- therefore, it appears that assessee had shown higher cost of construction. We direct the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of 3% of the alleged bogus purchases. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part. - ITA No.3782/Mum/2017, 4356/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2018 - Shri R C Sharma, Accountant Member And Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member For the assessee: Shri Rushabh Mehta For the Revenue: Shri M C Omi Ningshan / Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales Tax Department. Our attention was also invited by learned AR to the following evidences which were filed during the assessment and appellate proceedings: i. Copy of ledger of the dealer for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 ii. Copies of tax invoices which bear the TIN of the dealer iii. Copies of delivery challan - iv. Copies of confirmation received from the dealers v. Copies of Bank statement highlighting the payment in cheque to the dealers vi. Copy of Architect's certificate certifying consumption of materials vii. Copy of quantitative details of materials purchased 5. As per learned A.R, no negative observation/ finding is brought on record in relation to the said evidences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the average cost per sq. ft. of assessee worked out at ₹ 2958/- per sq.ft, is equivalent to its associate concern M/s. Triveni Properties with project in the same vicinity having average cost as ₹ 2907/- per sq. ft. Since, no allegation on purchases of said associate concern was made by the department, the average cost per sq. ft. of the assessee is to be accepted. 9. As per learned AR, addition if any should be restricted to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases as held in the case of the assessee's group concern - M/s. Triveni Homes in ITA No. 3780/Mum/2017 4355/Mum/2017 vide order dated 13/02/2018 under identical facts. 10. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the AO and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rward to subsequent years, the Id. CIT(A) reduced the work in progress by an amount of ₹ 64,95,711/-. Accordingly, the Id. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance for the year under consideration and enhanced the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 to the tune of ₹ 64,95,711/- when the project was completed and the expenditure was claimed. 14. Neither AO nor CIT(A) has invoked Section 40A(3) and hence, the department s ground on disallowance of purchases u/s.40A(3) in the grounds of appeal are unjustified. Further, even there is no finding brought on record to prove that Section 40A(3) is violated by the assessee. 15. In so far as the reliance of the revenue on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
