9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after set off of brought forward loss of Rs.51.12 Crores. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 17.12.2019 at total income of Rs.6,06,40,460/-. In the course of assessment, an addition of Rs.22,83,64,319/- was made on account of bogus expense debited in the name of M/s. Siddeshwari Infrastructure. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the addition @ 20% of the bogus expense, to the extent of Rs.4,56,72,864/- only. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. The foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is engaged in contractual work of infrastructure projects. The assessee had claimed expense of Rs.23,30,24,815/- in respect of sub-contract work claimed to have been carried out by M/s. Siddeshwari Infrastructure. In the course of search/survey proceeding at the premises of M/s. Siddeshwari Infrastructure, it transpired that the sub-contract amount as given by the assessee to M/s. Siddeshwari Infrastructure was bogus. As per the statement of Shri Rameshbhai Prajapati, partner of M/s. Siddeshwari Infrastructure, recorded during survey, it transpired that M/s. Siddeshwari Infrastructure had issued fake bills to the assessee and had received commission of 3% to 4% on such bogus bills. The Ld. CIT.DR emphasized that the sub-contract bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wari Infrastructure, which was held as bogus. It is a trite law that the entire turnover cannot be subjected to tax but only the profit element of the transaction can be brought to tax. The fact that the project work, in respect of which the sub-contract was allowed to M/s. Siddeshwari Infrastructure, was duly completed has not been disputed by the Revenue. If so, the entire sub-contract amount could not have been considered as income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) had considered the fact that the amount paid by cheque to M/s. Siddeshwari Infrastructure by the assessee was partly returned back and that the total amount received back by the assessee on different dates was to the extent of Rs.4.21 Crores, as found recorded in the impounded d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
