9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 2006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rievance of the revenue relates to the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 7,96,72,605/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus excavation charges alleged to have been paid to M/s. Saumya Mining Limited. 3. The underlying facts in both the issues are common and therefore both the grounds are taken up together for disposal. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Civil Contract Work. The return of income for the year was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. During the year under consideration, a survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted on 2.06.2010 on the business premises of the assessee. During the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases, the payments were shown as credits at the year end and further observed that none of these persons have executed any contract work for any other persons other than the assessee company. 7. On further query, the assessee furnished the copy of accounts of all the persons. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee is in the habit of claiming bogus expenses, therefore not convinced with the contentions of the assessee. The A.O. disallowed the sum of Rs. 2,13,94,500/- treating the work payment expenses as bogus. 8. Proceeding further, the A.O. noticed that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 7,96,72,605/- on account of excavation and dressing of soil being paid to Saumya Mining Limited. The assessee was asked to furnish the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not brought on record anything in rejection of the claim of expenditure by the asessee. The assessee has calculated the income surrendered during the course of survey separately. Having convinced with the contentions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) deleted both the disallowances. 11. Aggrieved by this, the revenue is before us. The ld. D.R. strongly supported the findings of the A.O. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 12. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and with the assistance of the ld. Counsel, we have considered the relevant documentary evidences brought on record in the form of paper book in the light of Rule 18(6) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antly, the allegation that the assessee's gross profit and net profit have substantially reduced during the year is also not correct. The following chart shows the profitability of the assessee for the year under consideration vis-à-vis previous year:- Particulars Year ended 31.03.2010 Year ended 31.03.2009 Total receipt including increase/ (decrease) in closing stock Contract and Other expenses 4,362.22 3,944.81 Contract and Other expenses 3853.57 3536.39 Gross Profit 508.65 408.42 Gross Profit Ratio% 11.66% 10.35% Depreciation 212.68 132.26 Other indirect Expenses 215.49 198.86 Net Profit 80.49 77.30 Net Cash profit before depreciation 293.16 209.55 Cash Profit 6.72% 5.31% 15. Assuming, yet not acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
