9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmation of disallowance of approximately 15% of bogus purchases as against 100% disallowed by the AO. 3. The brief facts of the case for A.Y. 2008-09 are that a search action was carried out on 18.10.2010 on Chhajer Group and its associate concerns which are engaged in the business of development of commercial and residential projects. The case of the assessee was also covered under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). The assessee had filed the original return of income on 27.06.2008 declaring an income of `53,07,105/-. Notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 12.08.2011 and it was complied with by filing return of income on 26.09.2011 declaring the same income as in the original return. In para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and he finally treated the entire purchase as bogus and non-genuine and added the same to the income the assessee by framing assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act assessing the income at `84,10,580/- vide order dated 22.03.2013. Aggrieved the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). 4. In the appellate proceedings the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the pleas of the assessee by observing and holding as under: - "48. Asst year 2008-09: The appellant has shown average profit of only 5% from the project Mahavir Ratan. The AO has also estimated profit @5% of the WIP in the next two years. But I think that is on a very low side. Considering various cases discussed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not based on evidences/material seized during the search action. Therefore the assessment order passed by the AO is contrary to law. 6. The learned D.R., on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the Authorities below and submitted that the assessee was clearly found a beneficiary of bogus purchase bills and, therefore, the action of the CIT(A) confirming 15% of the said purchase is reasonable and correct and be confirmed. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee is undisputedly found to be beneficiary of bogus purchase bills which during the year were to the tune of `31,03,479/- from three parties as published by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra on its official websit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
