9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 31.3.2005 and the total income was determined at ₹ 12,96,370/- after making additions on account of receipt of unaccounted job charges of ₹ 4,38,414/- and bogus purchases of ₹ 14,92,565/-. Against these two additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). CIT (A) vide his order dated 30-9-1996 gave partial relief to the assessee and it directed the deletion of the addition to the extent of ₹ 9,92,565/-. Before ITAT, Revenue contested the deletion of ₹ 9,92,565/- and the assessee contested the addition of ₹ 5 lacs. Hon ble ITAT vide order dated 22.9.2005 dismissed the assessee s ground and admitted the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ( even though not relevant for the department to establish) has been proved by the ITAT by way of above mentioned findings. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles and Processors and others 306 ITR 227 (SC), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted job work of ₹ 5,50,000/- is confirmed. 4. As regards the second issue i.e. penalty on bogus purchases from :- 1. Mukesh MetalCorporation. ₹ 98,640/- 2. Pooja Enterprise. ₹ 5,37,025/- 3. S.R. Metal Corporation ₹ 8,56,900/- Rs.14,92,565 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounted job work has been found. A.R. has also contended that the additions/disallowances made are purely on estimations, assumptions, conjectures or surmises basis and the AO has highly relied upon the assessment order only and he has not attempted to make out the case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The addition of the job work income and the purchases has been made, after rejecting the book result under section 145 of the Act for which reference was made to para 1 of Page No.3 of the assessment order. It was therefore contended that since, section 145 of the Act has been applied by the Ld. A.O. and the additions/disallowances have been made on estimate basis, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom whom the purchases were made had clearly stated that they did not make any such sale to the assessee concern. Ld. D.R. also pointed out to para-29, page 21 of ITAT order wherein it has observed that the three parties were examined by Excise authorities before whom they not only denied to have made any sales to the assessee but they also accepted before the AO that they did not make any sale to the Assessee. These parties also clarified before AO that they had also procured bogus bills to give colour of genuineness to the transaction. It was also stated by them that the payments received by cheque were repaid in cash to the assessee s representative. The assessee was also granted opportunity to cross examine the parties which was not ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
