9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The assessee has also offered the said sum of ₹ 20Crs as his income for AY 2012-13. A categorical finding has been recorded by CIT(A) to the effect that impugned purchase of ₹ 2,33,36,015/- was offered as income by the assessee in the assessment year 2012-2013. This finding of CIT(A) has not been controverted by learned DR by bringing any positive material on record. Since the assessee bonafidely offered the income of ₹ 20Crs in AY 2012-13 and also paid the due tax along with interest thereon, taxing the same in the impugned year will amount to double taxation of the same income. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the said addition. Addition of 15% of profit element on such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons for aforesaid delay. After going through the reasonings given by the assessee for condonation of delay, we found that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice we condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and the appeal is heard on merits. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s Dev Engineers engaged in Civil Construction work. During the year the AO was in receipt of information from the sales Tax Department that the following 10 parties from whom the assessee had purchased material were suspected to be only engaged in providing accommodation entri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , lorry receipt, the mode of transport of goods, evidence of payment of octroi (if any) stock register etc. for all the purchases from the alleged suppliers in support of its claim that purchases are genuinely made from these parties. 4. For similar purchases AO also added a sum of ₹ 2,33,36,015/-. By the impugned order the CIT(A) deleted the addition in respect of purchases of ₹ 2,33,36,015/- by observing that this purchase was already offered as income by the assessee in the assessment year 2012-13 in respect of purchases of ₹ 92,40,232/-, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of 15% of profit element on such purchases which works out to be ₹ 13,86,035/-, The precise observation of CIT(A) is as under:- 5.1 I have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 92,40,232/-; the explanation being given by the appellant during the course of appeal is that he is a contractor without monetary limit with Government/Semi Government and that he follows a process in which there is 3rd party check of the amount of work executed using the material supplied at the site. However, it also remains a fact that the appellant has himself during the course of Survey accepted that he follows the modus operandi of generating cash by using system of bogus bills. During the course of assessment and during the appeal the appellant has given detailed manner of working, however, he has not specifically been able to discharge the entire onus rebutting his own statement made during the course of survey regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat. This part features on page 12 of the statement by the appellant during the course of Survey. Therefore, in light of that the contention of the appellant is accepted that the same income cannot be brought to tax twice and appellant gets relief to the extent of ₹ 2,33,36,015/. 5. Against the above order of CIT(A), assessee and revenue are in appeals before us. 6. We have considered rival contentions and found that for the impugned assessment year total purchases from alleged MVAT parties were to the tune of ₹ 2,33,36,015/-. Pursuant to survey action on 27/02/2011, while recording the statement the assessee himself has offered these purchases as his income for A.Y. 2012-13, as he was unable to explain the same at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 17,79,05,770/- . Thus, assessee has declared gross profit rate of 17.46%. However, in the assessment year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the gross profit rate so declared by assessee was 8.60% and 10.64% respectfully. Thus, it is very much clear that during the year consideration, assessee has declared much better gross profit rate of 17.46% as compared to the earlier years, therefore, making further addition of 15% on such purchase appear to be very unreasonable. Thus, keeping in view the gross profit rate so declared by the assessee during the year under consideration, we upheld the addition of 2% on such purchases in place of 15% as upheld by CIT(A). We direct accordingly. 9. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
