2013 (12) TMI 1303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 1. Difference in account of Kohinoor Crane services : Rs. 25,15,865 2. Amount payable to Envee Feberect : Rs. 23,15,283 3. Depreciation claimed on machinery purchased : Rs. 1,15,250 4. Amount payable to Medha Construction : Rs. 2,99,750 5. Amount payable to Siva Engg. & Construction Co.: Rs. 4,25,988 Total : Rs. 55,92,258 During the course of hearing, the assessee did not press two additions listed as Sl. No. 4 and 5 above and hence the grounds relating to the same are dismissed as withdrawn. 3. The facts relating to the remaining three additions are narrated by the Ld. CIT(A) as under:- "4. The first effective ground of appeal is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g balance was shown as NIL. Verification of the invoice copy filed by the assessee revealed that the assessee had purchased a second hand machine for Rs. 11,22,000/- from Raj Exports. It was also noticed by the Assessing officer that the assessee is trying to inflate the cost of machinery by furnishing non-genuine purchase bill. In view of the above, the AO disallowed excess depreciation claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,15,250/- and added back the same to the income returned. 8. The last effective ground of appeal is against the disallowance of Rs. 23,15,283/- being the amount payable to Envee Faberect and Shri N. Mohammed, Proprietor had produced the same before the Assessing officer. On going through the same, it was notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... With regard to the payments made to M/s Envee Feberect, it was contended by Ld A.R that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross examine Shri N Mohamed, the proprietory of M/s Envee Feberect. According to Ld A.R, the assessee has made payments by way of cheques to all the three parties and they have given statements against the assessee to suit their convenience and hence their statements should not have been placed reliance by the tax authorities. However, the Ld D.R strongly supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A) by stating that the assessing officer has proved beyond doubt that the expenses claimed by the assessee are bogus in nature. 5. However, we notice that the assessee has made payments by way of cheques and hence the....