9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11), ITA No.4068 to 4070/MUM/2017(Assessment Year :2010-2011 to 2012-2013), ITA No.4060/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year :2010-2011) SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by :Shri Manish Jain Shri Pratik Jain, AR Revenue by : Shri Anadi Varma, DR O R D E R Per Bench: These eighteen cross appeals filed by the Revenue and different assessees are against the separate orders of the CIT(A), Pune, all dated 27.03.2017, for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2012-2013, respectively. Since the issues involved in all the aforementioned appeals are common but different in figures, therefore, all the appeals are heard en masse and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. First, we shall take up the appeals of the assessee-Arihant Enterprises in ITA Nos.4350 to 4352/Mum/2017 for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 along with appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos.4071 to 4073/Mum/2017 for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. For the sake of convenience, the facts and grounds mentioned in the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.4350/Mum/2017 for the assessment year 2007-2008 are taken into consideration for decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.Nil. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee had made purchases from some parties listed as hawala dealers by the sales tax department. The sales tax department had either recorded statements of such persons or had obtained affidavits from them to the effect that they were only providers of accommodation entries and they were not engaged in genuine business activity at all. On being asked by the AO, the assessee explained that the purchases were genuine and the statements recorded by the sales tax department cannot be relied on without affording any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the deponents that all the payments had been made through banking channels. However, the AO relying on the enquiries made by the sales tax department, completed the assessment and made the disallowance. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee and revenue both are in appeals before the Tribunal for the respective assessment years. 5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record including the report of the DCIT dated 30.11.2018 and observe that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, order dated 04.06.2018, in the case of M/s Abhishek Enterprises, a sister concern wherein the similar additions made were deleted for the want of incriminating material. In view of the above, the addition made by the AO is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we reverse the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made on account of bogus purchase and expenses disallowed non-deduction of TDS at source u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.4350 to 4352/Mum/2017 for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 are allowed. 7. Since we have directed the AO to delete the addition made on account of bogus purchase and non-deduction of TDS at source u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, while deciding the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos.4350 to 4352/Mum/2017 for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, as no addition can be made in the case unabated assessment where there is no incriminating material was found during the course of search, therefore, the appeals of the Revenue have no legs to stand and accordingly, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos.4071 to 4073/Mum/2017 for the assessment years 2007-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.4374/Mum/2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 13. Now, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee-M/s Arihant Construction in ITA No.4343/Mum/2017 and appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.4059/Mum/2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 14. The assessment in the case of assessee-M/s Arihant Construction is abated and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO disallowed bogus purchase of ₹ 87,14,444/- being 100% of the total bogus purchase and in appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has partly confirmed to the tune of 15% of the total bogus purchase, against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the Revenue is aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A). 15. At the outset, ld. AR before submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mahaavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos.4348 4349/Mum/2017 for the assessment year 2011-2012 2012-2013, order dated 28.11.2018, wherein the disallowance made on account of bogus purchase has been partly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) at 3% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
