9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchases. After examining the gross profit declared by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance which was offered by assessee before the Settlement Commission and thus granted partial relief. We have seen that order of CIT(A) is reasoned one and does not require any further interference at our end. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No.930/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2017 - Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member and Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For The Revenue : Ms. Beena Santosh (DR) For The Assessee : Shri V.G. Ginde Per Pawan Singh, JM 1. This appeal by Revenue and the Cross Objection (C.O.) therein by assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 declaring total income of ₹ 27,61,040/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 07.06.2013. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee approached the Settlement Commission Mumbai on the dispute/matter of bogus purchases. The assessee declared additional income in the application filed before the Settlement Commission. Due to pendency of application of assessee before the Settlement Commission, the assessment proceeding were kept in abeyance. No settlement could be arrived before Settlement Commission as the application of the applicant was considered as invalid, thus, the proceeding before the Settlement Commission was disallowed. The AO again take up the assessment proceeding and while framing assessment, the AO besides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee proved the genuineness by payments certificate by accounting in the Stock Register and the payments was made through account Payee Cheques. The claim of expenses of assessee has been corroborated by various documentary evidences filed before the AO as well as by ld. CIT(A). The AO relied upon the information of third party, the mere appearance of names of certain supplier on the website of Sale Tax Department; Government of Maharashtra does not prove that those parties have not supplied the material against the payment received by those persons. All the statement on which the AO relied were general statement, there was no reference in the said statement about the assessee. The AO has not given any opportunity to cross-examine those pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Krsna Enterprises ₹ 22,07,753/- Mahavir Enterprises ₹ 46,04,468/- Om Enterprises ₹ 18,14,688/- Prayosha Trading Co. Rs. 7,54,523/- Shivraj Traders ₹ 5,94,675/- Jain Corporation R s. 27,08,667/- Total: ₹ 2,38,32,673/- 5. The AO noticed that the name of all parties was shown in the list provided by the Sale Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to verify the addresses of the parties. The notices is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etailed enquiry and investigation. The finding of the postal authority that the parties are not available at the given addresses. The AO disallowed the aggregate of purchases from all 11 parties. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made the similar contention and in addition submitted that at the best 8% of the value of contract should be taken to be sufficient for the purpose of covering all the issues. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the contention of assessee passed the following order: I have gone through the facts of the case, contention of the AO and submissions of the appellant. The AO has gone into the issue by sending 133(6) notices and making field enquiries, but has not found any concrete evidence to doubt the gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes in no way establish that the parties actually existed, but then considering that the books of accounts have not been disputed, sales have not been disputed and neither cheques have been shown to be received back as cash by the appellant, I am of the considered view that in the context of the situation where the AO has himself said that what is being doubted is not the quantity of purchases per se, which has entered into the books of the appellant, but that the purchases were billed through bogus parties, then the cause of justice would be served by looking at the gross profit margins being declared by the appellant. Considering the above fact that the declaration of additional income of ₹ 37,63,260/- was made by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
