9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from the supplier, also evident from the record that the Revenue has not doubted the usage of materials for construction contract work undertaken by the assessee. It cannot be doubted that without the purchase of material, the assessee cannot carry out the construction work. Therefore, it appears to be a case of bogus bills arranged from the aforesaid entities and materials purchased from somewhere else at a lower cost. Thus, we deem it appropriate to restrict the disallowance to 8% of the disputed purchases in both assessment years. We find that the same is also in line with the judgment of Paramshakti Distributors Ltd. [ 2019 (7) TMI 838 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Decided partly in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of construction contracts. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee filed its return of income on 04/09/2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,94,17,271 and for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee filed its return of income on 07/09/2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,17,24,267. The aforesaid returns filed by the assessee were processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of the information received from the office of DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai about the assessee being involved in taking accommodation entries from the hawala dealers listed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and notice under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e did not purchase the material from the party mentioned in the sale bills and the said purchases were debited in the books of accounts mainly with the intention to reduce the taxable profits. Accordingly, the AO disallowed 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases for the assessment year 2009-10 and 10% of the alleged bogus purchases for the assessment year 2010-11. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before us. 5. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, on the basis of the information received from the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai that the assessee is the benefici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction work. Therefore, it appears to be a case of bogus bills arranged from the aforesaid entities and materials purchased from somewhere else at a lower cost. Thus, we are of the considered view that a reasonable disallowance of the purchases would meet the possibility of revenue leakage. Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate to restrict the disallowance to 8% of the disputed purchases in both assessment years. We find that the same is also in line with the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs Paramshakti Distributors Ltd. in ITA No. 413 of 2017 decided on 15/07/2019. As a result, grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals are partly allowed. 6. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
