9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee failed to substantiate his claim during the assessment proceedings." 3. The assessee is a proprietor engaged in the business of Civil Construction Activities in the name and style of M/s H R Builders. Return of income was filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 30/09/2012 declaring a total income of Rs,3,43,41,837/- u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce comparative GP/NP Chart for last three assessment years. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown net profit of Rs. 3,44,41,838/- on total turnover of Rs. 59,87,31,901/- showing net profit rate of 5.75%which is slightly decreased from previous year net profit of Rs. 5,14,19,208/- on total turnov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced before us deleting addition of purchases made by the Assessing officer by the Tribunal as well as CIT(A). In assessee's won case. The Ld. AR further submitted that audited books of accounts were never doubted and never rejected u/s 145 of the Act. There is no trading (sale/purchase) outside the books detected by the Assessing Officer. All purchases of construction related material were used in civil construction activities/business of assessee to generate the Revenue/gross receipts which are verified by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer without adequate show cause notice and in violation of principles of natural justice and made huge addition of Rs. 3,25,35,521/- in three baskets of (1) Purchases from parties without full address; ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue though has objected to additional evidence but did not comment any adverse to the effect of evidence. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 206. Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Babu Lal C Vorama Vs. ITO 282 ITR 251, Bombay High Court decision in case of M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises 372 ITR 619,Gujrat High Court's decision in case of CIT Vs. M. K. Brothers 163 ITR 249, Mather and Platt India Ltd. Vs. CIT 168 ITR 493 (Cal) & M/s Diagnostics Vs. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal). The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Bansal Stripes Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 103/2021 order dated 26/3/2021)). 7. We have heard both the parties a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
