TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the notices u/s 133(6) issued to the parties were returned unnerved as addressee was not available at the given address." 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in giving relief on Rs. 74,08,737/- in case of voluntary disclosure by the assessee against notice u/ s 131 of IT Act by treating it as genuine claims." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 which was made by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I.T. Act by treating the subcontract charges as genuine." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in relying upon judgments of the CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating that the facts involved in the of the appellant's case are different from the facts of the above case laws". 6. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to produce the parties from whom the alleged bill were received despite may opportunities accorded to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re made by the assessee that there were some suspicious dealers who were indulging in issuing bogus bills without any delivery of the materials on a commission basis as per official website of the Sales Tax Department of Govt. of Maharashtra. The AO issued notices to all these 4 parties u/s 133(6) which were returned unserved with the remark ' left' or 'not known'. The AO added Rs. 87,24,259/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act by rejecting the reply of the assessee as incorporated in para 5.4 of the assessment order by holding that the bills from these parties were fictitious which were procured without purchasing any materials. Similarly, notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were sent to all the parties from whom the purchases were made and which were appearing in the list of the parties as published by the Sales Tax Department and the said notices were also returned by the postal authorities with the remark 'left' or 'not known'. The aggregate of the total transaction of these 3 parties were Rs. 14,36,653/- which was raised in the 2nd ground of appeal. The AO made the addition of the same u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure by holding that no materials were purchase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....materials on record. We find from the records and orders of the authorities below that there three additions made by the AO of Rs. 87,24,259/- , Rs. 14,36,653/- and Rs. 20 lakhs u/s 69 C of the IT Act and in respect of 4th ,the AO did not allow any relief in respect of Rs. 74,08,737/- which was offered at the time of statement of the assessee u/s 131 by rejecting the claim of the assessee to allow the relief in respect of the same. We find that there was a search action u/s 132 of the Act in the case of M/s. Neev Infrastructure (P) Ltd. on 22.09.2011 following which survey was conducted on Shri Mafatlal V. Shah wherein he stated that he was providing accommodation bills to various parties and during post search verification it was found that the assessee had also received accommodation entries from Shri Mafatlal V. Shah and various other suppliers who were declared a hawala dealer by sales tax department, Govt. of Maharashtra. The statement of hawala dealer that he provided accommodation entries to the assessee is a good material for conducting further investigation, verification and enquiries but AO instead making further investigation, the AO completed the assessment on suspicion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO." In the case of ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013 (AY-2009-10) dated 05.11.2014, similar addition to the tune of Rs. 1,74,01,436/- was deleted by the Tribunal. The relevant para 8 is extracted below. 8. "Be that as it may, another important factor the bank account copies collected by the assessing officer shows that the assessee had made the a payments to the above said parties by way of account payee cheques. Thus, it is seen that the transactions have been routed through the bank accounts. Further, it is not the case of the assessing officer that the assessee has indulged in accounting of bogus purchases. When the assessee submitted that he could not have affected the sales without making corresponding purchases, the AO has taken the view that the assessee could have effected purchases in the grey market, which conclusion is, in fact, not supported by any material. Under this impression only, the AO has further expressed the view that the assesee would have purchased the materials by paying cash thus violating the provisions of sec40A(3) of the Act, which is again based on only surmises. In the absence of any mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessee has shown gross profit at 14.2% and net profit at 9.72%. 8.2. Even if for the sake of argument, the books of accounts are rejected, the profit has to be computed on the sales made by the assessee U/s. 44AD of the Act, the presumptive profit in case of civil contractors is 8% and in case of a partnership firm, a further deduction is allowed in respect of salary and interest paid to the partners. The ratio analysis of the profitability is also in favour of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the purchases are supported by proper invoices duly reflected in the books of account. The payments have been made by account payee cheque which are duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. There is no evidence to show that the assessee has received cash book from the suppliers. The additions have been made merely on the report of the Sales tax Department but at the same time it cannot be said that purchases are bogus. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 4,98,80,892/-. In the case of ITA No. 5920/Mum/2013 (AY: 2010-11) dated 27.03.2015, similar addition to the tune of Rs. 7,36,27,555/- was conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on this issue." In the case of ITA No. 5246/Mum/2013 (AY: 2010-11) dated 05.03.2015, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 28.08 lakhs. In the case of ITA No. 5706/Mum/2013 (AY: 2010-11) dated 13.05.2015, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal which deleted the addition of Rs. 1,37,65,667/-. The relevant para 5 is extracted below. 5. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO had not doubted the genuineness of the purchase but had made the disallowance of Rs. 1.37 crores invoking the provisions of 69C of the Act. We find that in similar circumstances the Tribunal had deleted the addition made by the AO in the cases relied upon by the AR of the assessee. In the case of Rajiv G Kalathil (supra),to which one of us was party identical issue has been decided as under :- 2.3.Before us, Departmental Representative argued that both the suppliers were not produced before the AO by the assessee, that one of them was declared hawala dealer by VAT department, that because of cheque payment made to the ....