9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility of its books and the evidence there was no merit in the appeal - Decided against Assessee. - ITA 89/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Ankit Gupta and Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. N. P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. ORDER 1. The assessee claims to be aggrieved by an order of the ITAT dated 07.12.2012, by which the disallowance to the tune of 3% which was sustained by the CIT (A) out of the disallowance of 15% made by the A.O. in respect of the expenditure claimed to have been incurred to the tune of Rs. 18,21,27,559/- was directed to be enhanced to 6% in an appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. The brief facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: - The reason mentioned in the assessment order rejecting the purchases on ad-hoc basis is though on various counts but cash payment has not been specifically prohibited under the Act unless and until any contrary material is brought on record or the limit as laid down under the Act. The break-up of the expenditure for consumption of the material has been dealt with at page 11 of the order under appeal and the total purchases in the business of the assessee are to the tune of Rs.93,62,79,794/- which includes purchase cost of Rs.18,21,27,559/- towards various construction material, the details of which have been provided at page 12 of the order of the learned first appellate authority. The factum of purchases from four disputed parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, our view is based upon the peculiar facts of this case only, therefore, this ground of the Revenue is allowed in part. 5. We notice that the AO had gone into the matter in quite some detail after obtaining the responses pursuant to notices issued to the suppliers of the goods. What is noteworthy here is that in respect of large number of notices only 4 suppliers came forward and supplied the details. That forms the basis for analysis. As to whether the percentage under these circumstances was rightly kept at 3% or 6%, in the opinion of this Court can hardly be a matter giving rise to a substantial question of law considering that the matter hinges entirely on appreciation of facts. Moreover, the assessee itself did not appeal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
