9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to as the Act). Thereafter, notices were issued under Section 142(1) of the Act on 7th August 2013. The assesse had disclosed an income of Rs. 2,48,958/- from gross receipt at Rs. 31,11,976/- as 8% of the gross receipt of M/s Sobha Developers Ltd., Karnataka. The 26AS statement showed the assessee's gross receipt at Rs. 4,07,60,704/-. The 26AS statement revealed that the assessee had received Rs. 3,03,760/- from TATA Projects Limited, Andhra Pradesh; Rs. 3,69,82,144/- from HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and Rs. 3,62,824/- from Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, Chennai. Letters were issued under Section 133(6) of the Act to these three companies. Tata Projects Limited confirmed payment of Rs. 3,03,760/- to the petitioner for FY 2010-11, HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. also confirmed payment to the tune of Rs. 3,69,82,144/- and Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited also confirmed gross payment of Rs. 3,62,824/- to the petitioner in FY 2010-11. Since all these three parties had confirmed payment to the petitioner and the books of account had not been maintained nor audited by the petitioner under Section 145 of the Act, the books of accounts were rejected and 8% of gross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a penny from it during the relevant financial year. The said company had declared bogus payment to the assesse by showing tax deduction against such payment and depositing it in the Government account. It was a fictitious payment sought to be legalized by deducting tax at source. According to the petitioner, he had also written letters to M/s HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. asking for the details of the so-called payments but no response was received. Therefore, such a claim ought to be subjected to thorough verification. 4. The Commissioner, IT in order to check the veracity of the assessee's claim also issued letter dated 5th February 2016 on M/s HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. requiring it to submit the details and mode of payment of Rs. 3,69,82,144/- to the assessee. However, the letter was not responded by the company. Learned CIT, however, took note of the fact that during course of assessment proceedings the A.O. had gathered information from 26AS statement pertaining to the assessee and these three companies namely TATA Projects Limited, Andhra Pradesh; HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, Chennai had duly confirmed the payments and also submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper opportunity was granted to the petitioner during course of scrutiny assessment. (v) Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City II, Bombay reported in 1980 (Supp) SCC 660 para-6 in support of the plea that if a document i.e. the confirmation letter of the three concerns was relied upon by the AO and the Commissioner IT, petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to rebut the same. (vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner IT to make verification after proper inquiry about the alleged payment said to have been paid by M/s HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of Apex Court rendered in the case of Sajan Kumar Bhawsinka Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa & Anr. reported in (1999) 9 SCC 132. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, not been able to explain as to why no books of account were maintained. He however submits that the books of account were not audited as the income disclosed by the assessee in his original return was less ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at source against receipt of payment against these three concerns, the learned CIT had no reason to differ with the findings of the assessing officer. No contrary evidences were produced before him. Therefore, the scope of interference in the revisional order before this Court in writ jurisdiction being very limited, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant materials on record. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned CIT in revision as well. We have also considered the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the plea. In the present writ petition, the primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is in relation to lack of proper inquiry by the Commissioner, IT in respect of the payments allegedly made by the three concerns namely TATA Projects Limited, Andhra Pradesh; HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, Chennai to the petitioner during financial year 2010-11. We find that the petitioner had failed to maintain any books of account. Petitioner's books of account were neithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
