9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read as under: 1. The order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act of the Assessing Officer is bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on record. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing his order ex-parte and dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not attend the hearing posted by him, even while, as a matter of fact, there was not a single instance of failure on the part of the Appellant to attend the hearing fixed before the learned CIT(A), without obtaining an adjournment granted by him; apart from the fact that the learned CIT(A), on his own, had adjourned the hearing 8 times, out of which twice, after hearing the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in failing to consider the ground of appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vations: "6.1.7 It is important to note that appellant is carrying on the business as Civil Contractors and undertaking projects. The appellant has not furnished quantitative reconciliation. In which contract the goods have been used has not been furnished. Considering that the appellant has consumed the goods in execution of the contracts and not a trader, there cannot be any presumption that since the sales have been accepted by the AO, the purchases cannot be doubted. In the case of a trader, since the items purchased are sold as such without any processing/manufacturing/value addition, the fact that sales have been made goes to prove that the corresponding purchases were genuine. However, in the case of a manufacturer or contractor, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he percentage of cost of consumption over sales for this year when compared with other years. 6.1.9 Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proving the genuineness of the impugned purchases of Rs. 18,77,948/- with cogent evidences. Consequently, it is held that the said purchases are unsubstantiated and have to be considered as bogus purchases which have been debited in the books of account without the actual receipt." 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that as there is no compliance by the assessee in the first appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue revolves around the genuineness of the purchases and also the fact that the assessee had sought adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A) on 05.11.2018 and 10.01.2019, whereas the assessee failed to appear before him on the final opportunity given by the Ld. CIT(A) on 17.01.2019, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given another opportunity by the first appellate authority before deciding the appeal on merit. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him to decide the case on merit, after given reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on date to be fixed for hearing. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
