9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additions should be made on the entire purchases and not only the profit embedded in such purchases against which the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide (2017] 292 CTR 354 (SC). b. It is humbly requested that present appeal may be filed in accordance with the CBDT's Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 as per para 3.1(c) of the said circular. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) may kindly be vacated and that of the AO may be restored." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a contractor running the business in the name and style of M/s Sachin Construction. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 71,16,370. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, information was received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra that the assessee availed accommodation entries by way of bogus purchase bills from four traders, namely M/s Nikhil Enterprises, M/s Deep Enterprises, M/s Real Traders, and M/s Aryan Sales Corporation. Accordingly, on the basis of the information mentioned above, proceedings under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etion of construction activity. The AO accordingly held that the assessee has failed to reconcile the quantity-wise details of purchases from the hawala parties vis-à-vis the exemption thereof and the assessee has also failed to show that these were actually consumed in the construction activity by the assessee. The AO further held that the assessee has not submitted the copy of challans, octroi receipts which would have supported the movement of goods from one place to another. Accordingly, the AO concluded that the purchases made by the assessee from the dealers, namely M/s Nikhil Enterprises, M/s Deep Enterprises, M/s Real Traders, and M/s Aryan Sales Corporation to the extent of Rs.2,48,49,832 are non-genuine, which was disallowed and added the total income of the assessee. 5. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, after taking into consideration the fact that the purchases from the aforesaid dealers remained payable as on 31/03/2011 and reflected as "sundry creditors" for the next assessment year, i.e. 2012-13 and the said sundry creditors amounting to Rs.2,43,81,036 remained outstanding as on 31/03/2012 were added to the returned income for the assessment year 2012- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, in assessee's case there was no scrutiny assessment earlier and the return of income filed by the assessee was only processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, material came to the possession of the Assessing Officer indicating that the assessee has availed accommodation entries by way of bogus purchase bills. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer had sufficient tangible material available before him to form the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That being the case, the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, in our view, is valid. As regards, the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer and enhanced by learned Commissioner (Appeals), undisputedly, before the Assessing Officer the assessee had not furnished any evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases allegedly made from hawala operators. Therefore, he added such purchases to the income of the assessee. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has even added back the rest of the purchases to the income of the assessee. To a query from the bench as to wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumption of material in construction activity. However, the AO did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee has not furnished the date-wise quantity details of purchase/sales on a month-to-month basis as per the format mentioned in the assessment order. In this regard, we agree with the findings of the learned CIT(A) that the format as suggested by the AO in the assessment order was not suitable for soliciting the required information from the assessee being a construction contractor and these formats at best could be used to get the information from a trader who will have the opening stock and closing stock of material purchased and finished goods. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the deletion of addition to the tune of Rs.2,43,81,036 on the basis that the same has already been disallowed in the subsequent assessment year and the addition of the same amount in the year under consideration will tantamount to taxing the same amount twice, once in the impugned assessment year again in the assessment year, i.e. 2012-13. However, the Revenue is only aggrieved against the deletion of balance addition amounting to Rs.4,68,796. 9. Vide i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
