9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 875/- on account of Suppression of sales without appreciating the fact that the assessee had credited the above amount in the next year, inspite of TDS deducted on the amount has been claimed in this year. So, it was incumbent upon the assessee to offer the same amount as income for this year as per provisions of section 198 of the I. T. Act. " (3) "The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. " (4) "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground. " Assessee has filed following grounds of the Cross Objections: 1. ADDITION OF Rs. 13, 69. 417/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES: - a. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in alleging that the respondent has made bogus purchases by completely ignoring various documentary evidences submitted in support of subject transactions such as invoices, delivery challans, entries in bank statement for account payee cheques supported by bank manager's certificate, etc. b. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in alleging that the defaults on the part of the suppliers under the provisions of the MVAT Act, would not be sufficient to hold resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us, Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee stated that grounds of C. O. filed were infructuous. Therefore, cross objections filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 2. Assessee, an individual, engaged in the business of civil contractors, filed his return of income on 30. 09. 2009 declaring income of Rs. 34. 02 lakhs. The AO completed the assessment on 17. 12. 2011 determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 2. 37crores. 2. 1. First ground of appeal is about deleting an addition of Rs. 13, 69, 417/- on account of nongenuine purchases. During the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s. 133(6)of the Act were sent to some of the sundry creditors on random basis. However, notice in the cases of M/s D K Enterprises (DKE)and N B Enterprises(NBE)were returned back by the postal authorities with the "Not Known" remarks. Therefore, he was asked give correct addresses or in the alternative to explain as to why the purchases of Rs. 5, 05, 259 from NBE and Rs. 8, 64, 158/- from DKE totaling to Rs. 13, 69, 417 should not be treated as bogus purchase. He was also asked to submit sample bills of those parties. The assessee submitted a letter dated 05-12- 2011 as under: " . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be sufficient evidences to hold that the purchases were non-genuine, that the AO had not brought any independent and reliable evidences against the assessee to prove the non-genuineness of the purchases, that there was no evidence regarding cash received back from the suppliers. Finally, he deleted the addition made by the AO . 2. 3. Before us, Departmental Representative argued that both the suppliers were not produced before the AO by the assessee, that one of them was declared hawala dealer by VAT department, that because of cheque payment made to the supplier transaction cannot be taken as genuine. He relied upon the order of the G Bench of Mumbai Tribunal delivered in the case of Western Extrusion Industries. (ITA/6579/Mum/2010-dated 13. 11. 2013). Authrorised representative (AR) contended that payments made by the assessee were supported by the banker's statement, that goods received by the assessee from the supplie was part of closing stock, that the transporter had admitted the transportation of goods to the site. He relied upon the case of Babula Borana (282 ITR251), Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (216Taxman171)delivered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 2. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However in the balance sheet instead of Rs. 1, 72, 92, 565/-[385, 22, 149 (-) 2, 12, 29, 584] only Rs. 1, 41, 70, 000/-was shown as advance from JISL. In response to the same the assessee submits as under through the letter dated 14-10-. 2011. The AO rejected the stand taken by the assessee on the ground that the assessee had treated the part amount as advance which was to be adjusted as and when the bill arose, that the assessee had take credit of whole TDS, that the contention of the assessee that amount was partly treated as advance which was adjusted in stages in next AY was not acceptable , that the work was already in progress, that remaining amount was to shown as WIP on the credit side of P&L A/c and not as advance in Balance sheet, that the work contract received was only one work, that the work was not several pieces of work but one project, that the project had already started during FY. 2008-09, that the entire receipts had to be treated as sales or as WIP, that the assessee had shown Rs. 1, 41, 70, 000/- as advance which resulted in reduction of profit, that on the other part he claimed full TDS credit for amount received, that as per Section 198 of the Act all sums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had taken credit for the TDS for the year under appeal, that provisions of section 199 require the assessee to declare the income for a particular year, if credit for tax paid is taken by it. He relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court delivered in the matter of Smt. Pushpa Vijoy(19taxmann. com. 175). AR argued that amount in question was an advance, that contract was given to the assessee and fag end of Decmeber, that during the succeeding year income was offered for taxation, that only 20% was advance, that the assessee was in same bracket of income for both the years, that treatment given by the assessee was as per the provisions of AS-9. 3. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. Undisputed fact of the case are that the assessee had received work order in December 2008 for refloating, repair and installation of sea water intake and outfall pipeline for Chennai Desalination Limited at Ennore Port, Chennai, that he had raised bills of Rs. . 88. 3 Lakhs for the period ending on 31. 03. 2009, that 20% of the billed amount i. e. Rs. 17. 66 Lakhs was adjusted out of the total advance received by him, that balance advance of Rs. 1. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
