9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re opening of assessment u/s 147, in our view, is valid. Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, before AO the assessee had not furnished any evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases allegedly made from hawala operators. Therefore, he added such purchases to the income of the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) has even added back the rest of the purchases to the income of the assessee. To a query from the Bench as to whether the assessee can furnish quantitative details to show purchases and consumption of material in construction activity, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, given an opportunity, the assessee would furnish the details before the AO. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned Authorised Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the addition made of ₹ 42,11,333, on account of non genuine purchases. In addition, the assessee has raised additional grounds challenging the validity of re opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. 3. Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of construction activity through his proprietary concern M/s. Sachin Construction. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 29th September 2011, declaring total income of ₹ 71,16,370. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee is a be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown by the assessee is not genuine, learned Commissioner (Appeals) issued notices for enhancement of income and after considering the submissions of the assessee, made further addition of ₹ 206,38,499. 5. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee could not appear and furnish supporting evidences before the Assessing Officer to prove the purchases which resulted in a best judgment assessment. Further, he submitted, learned Commissioner (Appeals) without properly appreciating the facts has enhanced the income by an amount of ₹ 2,06,38,499, disallowing all the purchases shown by the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, since the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to prove the genuineness of purchases made during the year, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in enhancing the income of the assessee by disallowing the purchases. He submitted, the assessee has not proved with supporting evidence why such huge purchase of steel was required and how it was utilized. Thus, he submitted, the addition made should be sustained. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, in assessee s case there was no scrutiny assessment earlier and the return of income filed by the assessee was only processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, material came to the possession of the Assessing Officer indicating that the assessee had avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA no.6652/Mum./2017 10. This appeal is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. As could be seen from the facts on record, on the basis of additions made on account of non genuine purchases, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also sustained the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. 12. While deciding assessee s quantum appeal in ITA no.4311/Mum./ 2017, hereinbefore, we have restored the issue relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
