9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come of the assessee. Thus we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases of ₹ 1,38,01,084/-. Thus the 1st ground of appeal is partly allowed. As it is a case of bogus purchases, the question of allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10) does not arise and accordingly, the 2nd ground of appeal is dismissed. - ITA No. 3909/MUM/2016 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2018 - Shri Mahavir Singh (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Mr. Somnath M. Wajale, DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treating the purchases as bogus / non genuine purchases without appreciating the fact that such addition of purchases will increase the profits of the housing project eligible for the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10). The appellant hereby prays that the deduction may please be granted. 3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has made purchases amounting to ₹ 1,38,01,084/- from hawala dealers who are involved in issuing bogus bills. In support of its claim of aforesaid purchases, the assessee furnished before the AO sample bill, name and address of the said hawala dealers. In order to verify the genuineness of transactions, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raders have categorically denied any sale/purchase transaction with the assessee. Further, as per the information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, the present assessee is one of such beneficiaries of hawala operators. The said hawala operators have categorically stated before the Sales Tax Authorities that the purchase transactions are not genuine and no materials were actually supplied. In view of the above facts, the AO made an addition of ₹ 1,38,01,084/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the addition made by the AO of unaccounted stock introduced in the guise of purchases from outside parties is based on the evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
