9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on its income / profit during AY 2011-12 as the same have been accounted for as “work-in-progress”, but the same will certainly effect the income of the assessee in the next assessment year as well as at the conclusion of project. Though the AO has made a discreet enquiry through Inspector as to the existence of the firm from whom the assessee alleged to have purchased the raw material, but at the same time AO categorically recorded the observations that the assessee has failed to produce such parties inspite of repeated opportunities given to them but no such adequate opportunity allegedly provided by the AO to the assessee is visible on the record, particularly when examined in the light of the fact that ld. CIT (A) has categorically me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized by the assessee company. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." ITA NO.4843/DEL/20114 "1. The order of Ld. CIT (A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,77,50,185/- made by AO on account of bogus purchase which were capitalized by the assessee company. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. The Objectors, M/s. Amrapali Smart City Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Amrapali Smart City Developers Pvt. Ltd., by filing the present cross objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es viz. bills of transport, toll naka entries, details of destination and utilization thereof. AO, in the post search enquiry, issued summons u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') which came back unserved with the report "no such address". Then AO got the matter enquired into through Inspector who has also reported that the addresses mentioned are not existing and consequently, AO came to the conclusion that the alleged purchases made by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 1,25,00,163/- from M/s. Shiv Sales, ₹ 75,00,008/- from M/s. Guru Nanak Trading Co., ₹ 50,00,014/- from M/s. Balaji Enterprises are bogus and unexplained expenditure and thereby reduced bogus purchases of ₹ 3,77,50,185/- from the closi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnished the details of the companies from whom the purchases have been made. AO conducted the enquiry initially by issuing summons u/s 131 which received back unserved and then got the matter enquired into through Circle Inspector of Income-tax who has reported that no such firms are in existences and thereby found the amount of ₹ 7,75,00,484/- not genuine and treated the same as bogus purchases and reduced the same from the closing work-in-progress during the year under assessment. 6. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing appeals who has allowed the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of challenging the impugned orders passed by ld. CIT. 7. We have heard the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the parties on the given business as well as residential addresses were not verifiable. b) The location of the premises from which business is purport to be carried is such from which operation of business alleged to be carried out is not possible. c) The level of transactions routed through the bank account of these parties are such voluminous and big, which person of status of these parties in no manner can match. d) Money routed through the bank accounts are at first stage transferred to other accounts and at second stage these are withdrawn mostly in cash, which is repatriated to the beneficiary i.e. the assessee company and its associates in cash. e) Moreover, failure on the part of the assessee to produce such parties i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry through Inspector as to the existence of the firm from whom the assessee alleged to have purchased the raw material, but at the same time AO categorically recorded the observations in Para 4.6(e) (in ITA No.4844/Del/2014 &4845/Del/2014) and 5.6(e) (in ITA No. 5273/Del/2014) that the assessee has failed to produce such parties inspite of repeated opportunities given to them but no such adequate opportunity allegedly provided by the AO to the assessee is visible on the record, particularly when examined in the light of the fact that ld. CIT (A) has categorically mentioned in the impugned order that the assessee has filed all the requisite evidences again without highlighting the said piece of evidence. Even the assessee has not been confr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
