9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy after considering the case of the assessee from every angle. Nothing came into the notice that the finding of the CIT(A) is required to be interfere with. In view of the discussion made above we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income to the tune of ₹ 37,60,430/- on 20.09.2010. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short "the Act"). Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 25.08.2011. Consequent to the change of incumbent in office, fresh notice u/s.142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire was issued on 09.07.2012. The assessee was an individual and was a civil contractor. The assessee purchased the material from 21 parties amounting to ₹ 4,99,27,664/-. These parties were suspicious dealers and were issuing the bills without delivery of any goods or material for commission. Therefore, show cause notice was given and notice u/s.133(6) of the Act were issued. The notices were served. However, the official of the Income Tax Department visited the spot and found that no business was running there. The assessee failed to produce the parties for verification. It was incumbent upon the assessee to establish genuineness of the purchases but the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Modi Patel Road, Bhayander (W) Thane- 401101 31,35,102 15 M/s. Rohit Enterprise Om Sai Baba Nagar, Room No.1, Janta Nagar Road, Near Sargam Apt., Bhayander (W), Thane - 401101 25,08,517 16 M/s. Shree Sai Trading Co. 6/2 Madhav Niwas, Ram Mandir Road, Bhayander (W), Thane - 400067 19,35,147 17 M/s. Siddhi Enterprise 14 Kolsa "X" Lane, 23 Shirin Mansion, Pydhonie, Mumbai- 400003 31,33,894 18 M/s. Skand Industries 14 Kolsa "X" Lane, 23 Shirin Mansion, Pydhonie, Mumbai- 400003 19,07,446 19 M/s. Tulsiani Trading Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.182, Room No.9, Sec-1, Sanjivini CHS Ltd., Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai - 400067 25,04,063 20 M/s. Urvin General Trading P. Ltd. 218/220 Samuel St., Kapoorwala Bldg., Mezannine Floor, Mumbai - 400003 30,60,692 21 M/s. V. K. Enterprises 163/4540 Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai - 400075 62,275 Total 4,99,27,667 5. The Assessing Officer issued the show cause notice to the assessee and also issued the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. However, the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act were received served but the parties were not found working as per the report of the official who visited there. However, the assessee claimed to be the genuine tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to treat the same as unexplained expenditure. Apart from this, even the copes of statements alleged to have been recorded by the MVAT department were not furnished to the appellant. Therefore, the rebuttal of the same by the appellant was not possible. Any assessment made in violation of this aspect is against the law of natural justice. Besides, without purchases, the appellant could not have executed huge contract work of 28.33 crores during the year under appeal. The appellant has already shown Gross Profit and Net Profit which are duly accepted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, in the absence of rejection of any book result, such huge addition of ₹ 4,99,27,664/- is not tenable in law. In this regard, I have also noticed the orders of the jurisdictional tribunal in the case of Balaji Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. (49 ITD 117 Mum). Moreover, the Authorised Representative has rightly adverted my attention to the orders of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of FREE INDIA ASSURANCE SERVICES LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (132 ITD 60) (Mumbai)(Trib) in which it was held that, "In the absence of any material to refute the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal are allowed". 6. On appraisal of the above mentioned order, it is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer arrived at this conclusion that the purchases to the tune of ₹ 4,99,27,664/- were from the 21 parties whose names have been cited in the official website of the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra www.mahavat.gov.in. as bogus as these parties were issuing bills without any delivery of goods or material for commission. Assessee disclosed the addresses of all these parties and also furnish the details of payment through bank in the account of the said parties. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued the notices to the parties which were duly served upon the assessee but the matter was not further enquired into. The only reason which has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer is that the official of the Income Tax Department has visited in the premises of all the 21 parties, where no business was found but infact there is no further enquiry was done by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer did not enquire about the payment of the assessee through cheque in the accounts of the said 21 parties. No doubt after giving the address and after givin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
