9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34 &/CTK/2017 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2018 - S/Shri N. S. Saini, Accountant Member And Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member Assessee by : Shri Manoj Kumar Patra, AR Revenue by : Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR ORDER Per N.S.Saini, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the CIT(A)-3, Bhubaneswar all dated 7th June, 2016 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-2011, respectively. 2. The sole issue involved in all these appeals is that the addition made on estimate basis as bogus expenditure amounting to ₹ 8,53,176/- for the assessment year 2007-08, ₹ 31,25,558/- for the assessment year 2008-09, ₹ 80,42,406/- for the assessment year 2009-2010 and ₹ 25,01,682/- for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2008-09, ₹ 80,42,406/- for the assessment year 2009-2010 and ₹ 25,01,682/- for the assessment year 2010-2011. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the trip wise transportation details of each transporter with consignment notes and lorry challan for each lorry used for transportation, transit pass issued by Deputy Director of Mines, vouches of other expenses, lorry hire contract, were neither kept nor found in course of search or these were not produced for verification in any proceedings under the Act. The quantitative details available from transportation bills differ from quantitative details of purchases given in the audit report. Deduction of tax at source on paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made cannot be sustained in law in view of the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of the decision dated 28.8.2015 in the case of CIT(Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla in ITA No. 707/Del/2014 wherein the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has reiterated the settled legal proposition that since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. 7. On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The appeals under consideration are in pursuance to assessments made u/s.153C of the Act in pursuance to a search conducted u/s.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 929 of 2016(Kol) 4) Pr. CIT vs. Somaya Construction Pvt ltd., 387 ITR 529 (Guj) 5) CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd., 385 ITR 346 (Kar) 6) CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa, 386 ITR 143 (Bom) 7) Pr. CIT vs. Dharmapal Premchand Ltd., in ITA No. 512, 513 514/2016 order dated 21.08.2017(Delhi) 10. Coming to the facts of the case under appeal, it is observed that the Assessing officer required the assessee to produce the supporting documents for the expenses incurred for transportation charges. The assessee produced ledger copy. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of the total expenses, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Ld D.R. could not point out any material which was unearthed because of the search. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
