9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sanjiv Brahme a/w Shri Jayant Bhatt For the Revenue : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 22/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [ learned CIT(A) ], for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of purchases of Rs. 4,68,796/- from non-existent vendors by not following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No.242 of 2003 dated 20/06/2016 in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs DCIT wherein it has been held that once the purchases are bogus, additions should be made on the entire purchases and not only the profit embedded in such purchases against which the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon ble Apex Court vide (2017] 292 CTR 354 (SC). b. It is humbly requested that present appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the afore-noted four parties. In response, the assessee uploaded its reply and furnished the audit report, work order, bank extracts, purchase account, and cash book. Upon perusal of the documents uploaded by the assessee, the AO noted that the assessee did not upload the simultaneous quantitative month-wise purchase and immediate consumption of the material in the construction activity depicting the opening stock plus purchase minus the use of material leaving behind the closing stock at the end of each month. Accordingly, vide order dated 30/09/2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act, the AO held that the assessee has not submitted the requisite information required through the notices from time to time in support of its submission. The AO further held that despite the grant of sufficient opportunities, the assessee is not able to substantiate the purchases and their consumption in the completion of construction activity. The AO accordingly held that the assessee has failed to reconcile the quantity-wise details of purchases from the hawala parties vis- -vis the exemption thereof and the assessee has also failed to show that these were actually consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Department, Maharashtra, the AO initiated the reassessment proceedings and made an addition of an amount of Rs.42,11,333. However, in further appeal, the learned CIT(A) taking into consideration the fact that the assessee in its books of accounts had disclosed purchases amounting to Rs.2,48,49,832 from the alleged hawala dealers made an enhancement and disallowed the entire amount of Rs.2,48,49,832 as bogus purchases. It is evident from the record that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 23/08/2019 granted another opportunity to the assessee to furnish quantitative details to show purchases and consumption of material in the construction activity and accordingly restored the issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after the due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench, vide aforesaid decision, are reproduced as follows: We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, in assessee's case there was no scrutiny assessment earlier and the return of income filed by the assessee was only processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, material came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12 at DAV School, Ahmedabad, Navi Mumbai SEZ Private Limited at Uran, Navi Mumbai and Reliance Industries, Navi Mumbai. (g) Work orders of DAV School and Navi Mumbai SEZ. 8. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is also evident that the AO agreed to the fact that the assessee uploaded his reply on 04/09/2021 wherein the assessee submitted the audit report, work order, bank extracts, purchase account and cash book. We further find that in response to the show cause notice dated 17/09/2021, the assessee submitted that he has already made appropriate submissions (total 5 in no.) and given all the details called for. We find that the aforesaid details were in line with its submission made in the first round of proceedings before the Tribunal, wherein the assessee agreed to furnish the quantitative details to show purchases and consumption of material in construction activity. However, the AO did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee has not furnished the date-wise quantity details of purchase/sales on a month-to-month basis as per the format mentioned in the assessment order. In this regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
