9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1961 ("the Act") against the order dated 03rd May, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'E', Mumbai (ITAT), in Income Tax Appeal No.4549/Mum/2015, relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration: "6.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is perverse in not considering the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N K Protein Ltd. dated 16.01.2017, which is on the similar issue of bogus purchases and when the Hon'ble Apex Court order was already the law of the land when the Hon'ble ITAT has pronounced its order on 03.05.2017? 6.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who had limited and disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the total alleged purchase without verification and confirmation of quantitative data of material sourced and its subsequent movement during the year?" 3. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: The Assessee undertakes civil contract works awarded mostly by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Return of income was fled for the assessment year 2009-10, declaring a total income of Rs.92,36,071/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, at a total income of Rs.93,72,290/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department through D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. Rs.56,26,047/-, therefore, relief was granted to the appellant to the extent of Rs.4,50,08,383/- - Rs.56,26,047/- = Rs.3,93,82,336/-. The order of CIT (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal vide its order dated 03rd May, 2017, dismissed the same. It was held that without purchasing materials and goods, it would not have been possible on the part of the assessee to execute the contract work with the MCGM, which is a Government Authority. It also held that the A.O. had not disputed the turnover of the contract work executed by the assessee and that unless the assessee procured the materials and goods, if not from the declared sources but from some other sources, it would not be possible on the part of the assessee to execute work a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
