9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed by the Assessee against the order of the LearnedCommissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [in short CIT(A)] order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ), for assessment years 2009-10 2010-11. Boththe orders were passed on dated 25.02.2022. The impugned orderswere generated for the period 2009-10 2010-11 from the orders of the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Thane, both the orders are passed on 28.03.2013, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of Act. The assessee filed both the appeals of two years but the issues are consequential in nature. So, we are adjudicating the issues by a common order related to both the appeals. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - In ITA No. 764/MUM/2022 for the A.Y. 2009-10 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition to the extent of Rs. 10,649/- corresponding to employees contribution even when the same is deposited into the treasury by the appellant before the filing of return of income. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in treati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing 91% of the purchase claimed in respect of project VAL DAF D ORC B,C i.e. 91% of Rs. 68,49,206/- amounting to Rs. 62,32,777/- effected in FY 2008-09 on the reasoning of that such purchases were bogus. 6. Without prejudice to the above, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the facts that even if the purchases are deemed to be bogus, only a percentage of the total purchases can be disallowed and not the entire purchases. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 versus M/s Mohommad Haji Adam Co. 2019(2) TMI 1632 . 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in la Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO wherein he has disallowed the bonus expenses of Rs. 65,417/-, in spite of the fact that the rectification application was already filed and pending requesting to rectify the said error. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in la Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance on account of depreciati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r noticed that an amount of Rs. 1,57,8547- is shown as outstanding in the name of M/s Saurabh Enviro Associates, for a long period. The Assessing Officer accordingly, held this amount as income of the assessee by treating the same as cessation of liability within the meaning of sec.41 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, no submission with regard to said grounds of appeal have been made by the appellant which shows that the appellant does not want to press this ground of appeal. The same is accordingly DISMISSED and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. 4.4. The learned counsel of the assessee further argued that the purchase amount of Rs. 7,04,60,907/- was made from 10 dealers. Only the purchase from Sivanmani Traders and Vinayak Trading Co. were made for project green A amount of Rs. 2,72,146/- and Rs. 6,80,446/- total amount of Rs. 9,52,592/- was made on financial year 2008-09 and the sale was completed in financial year 2008-09. But as per the revenue that purchase was made from Hawala dealers in page no. 34 of the APB also. The learned counsel referred the judgment on which are as follows:- 1. Nimitee Constructions Designs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dispute. Both the revenue authorities did not complete verification of the purchaser in proper way. The ld. DR was not able to press the issue strongly.We are not accepting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the addition made an amount of Rs. 9,52,592/-. Accordingly, the addition amount of Rs. 952,592/- is deleted. In ground no-5,related to claim of expanses for late payment charge of TDS amount of Rs. 3,93,720/- the issue was adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR also relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We respectfully considered the ordersof the Coordinate Bench in case of DNV GL AS vs. ADIT in ITA No. 4687/MUM/2016, dated-31-05-2017, M/s Jindal Aluminum Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITAT No. 32/Bang/2019 dated 25.08.2021. We are inclining on the order of the CIT(A). The ground no-5 of assessee is dismissed. For ITA no-765/MUM/2022 6.2. The learned counsel mentioned thatground no. 1 related to disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act amount of Rs. 92,400 is not pressed. For ground no. 2 related to late payment charge of TDS amount of Rs. 2,05,630/- is decided in assessment year 2009-10, vide above. For brevity the issue is disposed of against the assessee. Accordingly, ground-2 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame Address of the Party from whom the purchases have been made. b. VAT number. c. Copy of return of income. d. Copy of Sales Tax Return. e. Copy of the Purchase Order. f. Details of Octroi/ Freight Charges if paid. g. Details of mode of transportation, and installation. You are. requested to submit the above details immediately, failure to which the name will be treated as unexplained investments on account of Purchases made in. your case. On perusal of the Annexure-4, it was also noted that following parties were blacklisted by the Sales Tax Department on account of Hawala Transactions. The letters issued for furnishing information u/s 133(6) was also returned unserved. Hence you are hereby given a show cause as to explain why the above Purchase transactions in the case of the above parties for various years an mentioned below should not be treated as unexplained investments on. account of Purchases in your cases and added to your total income. Sr no. Name of the Party. VAT AY 08-09 09-10 1 Ankit Enterprises 27060103705 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year through sales. The ld. Counsel relied on the following judgments which are asfollows: - 1. Nirmitee Constructions Designs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2017(9) TMI 717-ITAT Mumbai. 2. M/s Lotus Construction vs. JCIT-32(2), Mumbai 2018 TMI 1749-ITAT Mumbai. 3. Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. Simit P Sheth-2013 (10) TMI 1028-Gujarat High Court. 4. M/s Excel Reality N Infra Ltd. Vs DCIT-9(2)(2), Mumbai (Vice-Versa) 2021 (10) TMI 948-ITAT Mumbai. 5. Shri Pravin C. Bokadia vs. ITO-Circle 19(2)(5)-ITA No. 3552/Mum/2019 6. Shri Praveen Singh Chandan Singh Dewal vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai, 2021 (12) TMI 50 ITAT Mumbai. 7. M/s Resolve Salvage Fire India Private Limited vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai 2022 (4) TMI 906-ITAT Mumbai. 8. DCIT, Circle-3(1), P-7, Kolkata vs. M/s narayaniIspatPvt. Ltd. 2017 (10) TMI 67-ITAT Kolkata. Accordingly, we are declining the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directing to delete the addition amount of Rs. 62,32,777/-. 8. In the result, In ITA No. 764/Mum/2022 in ground nos. 1,3 4 are allowed, ground no. 2 2.1 are allowed for statistical purposes and ground No. 5 is rejected. Ground no. 6 is general in nature. In ITA No. 765/MUM/2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
