9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom these suspected parties on which profit accounted for is only to the tune of ₹ 9.69% but in our view the profit rate in the case of bogus purchase or purchase made from suspected parties should have been at the rate of 12.5%. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition being differential amount as profit at the rate of 12.5% minus (-) 9.61% on the bogus purchases or purchases from suspected parties amounting to ₹ 1,50,25,860/- only. There is no defect in the books of accounts but since, there is element of bogus purchase which we have already considered and no other addition can be made. We direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income in view of the above directions. The appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its is as regards to the rejection of books of account and thereby applying profit rate at the rate of 8.17% on the gross receipts by relying on the decision of settlement commission for AY 2011-12. For this, assessee has raised the following grounds: - 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Learned A.O has erred in concluding the assessment by rejecting the books of account of the appellant without issuing any show cause or without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to appellant and reasons assigned by him for doing the same are wrong and insufficient. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Learned A.O. has erred in passing assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interested in pursuing the appeal when appellant representative filed request Letter for short adjournment due to the pressure of submitting the Tax audit return. b) While sustaining the addition of ₹ 34,83,474/- the Learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO made the said addition by oversight and mistake and correct working for the year in question according to Settlement commission were reported in the assessment order also and AO has accepted in principle that income for the year will be determined as per settlement commission order and the same thing were noted in Para 5.4 of the Assessment order. however, while passing the order applied the Settlement commission rate for the Year to the receipt which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover. The assessee s gross contract receipt was taken at ₹6,50,58,621/- and applied the gross profit rate at the rate of 8.17% on gross receipts and assessed the income at ₹53,15,289/- as against the income declared by the assessee at ₹18,31,815/- thereby differential amount of ₹ 34,84,474/- was added to total income of the assessee by observing in Para 5.4 as under: - 5.4 The submission of the assessee have been considered at length. In view of the fact that the assessee h ad gone to the Settlement Commission, Mumbai for the AY 2010-11 2011-12 and also taking into consideration the various decisions of settlement commission in the case of contractors, who had procured goods from the bogus ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by the MCGM in respect of the various work undertaken by the appellant firm. f. Summary of total activity carried out by the appellant firm on the basis of payment certificate. The assessee also filed the following evidences: - a. Purchase bills b. Transportation bills c. Confirmed copy of accounts d. Payment through account payee cheques. e. VAT registration of the sellers and their Income Tax Return. 7. We noted that the assessee has disclosed profit rate at the rate of 9.61% on the turnover of ₹6,50,58,621/- and there is no dispute whatsoever noted by the Assessing Officer or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
