9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see:- 2009-10 1. On the facts and in law, learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustenance of addition to the extent of Rs.4,40,725/- u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2010-11 [1] On the facts and in law, learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in sustenance of addition to the extent of Rs.17,75,174/- u/s.69 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [2] Alleged information received from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra is used against the Appellant without providing copies thereof to the Appellant and without providing due opportunities to the Appellant of rebuttal / filing objections and / or cross examinations of alleged suspicious suppliers, as the case maybe. [3] The Appellant crave leave to add, to alter and / or amend the fore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f hearing, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 2010-11 [1] "Whether on the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was right in restricting the disallowance made on account of bogus purchase made by the assessee to 12.5% of the total purchases made without considering the finding given by the A.O. in the assessment order that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus caste upon it to establish the genuineness of purchase made with support of authentic third party documentary evidences like copy of delivery challan transportation receipt/lorry records, relevant entry in the stock register etc., especially considering the fact that the suppliers have admitted before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under the Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO relied on alleged information received from the website of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. / DGIT (Inv) with regard to bogus suppliers. AO added 100% of such purchases in assessees income. 5. By the impugned order, CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of bogus purchases by observing that AO has not declined the corresponding sales made by the assessee in respect of alleged bogus purchases. Against the above order of CIT(A) both assessee and revenue are in further appeal before us. 6. It was argued by learned AR that the AO did not find any inflation in purchase price or inflation in consumption or su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
