TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he department is challenging the estimation of profit at 8% as against the addition of entire bogus purchase by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) u/s. 69C of the Act, the assessee has pleaded deletion of the entire addition. 2. Briefly the facts are that, the assessee an individual is primarily engaged in executing civil contract work. For the assessment year under consideration assessee had filed his return of income on 8.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 11,52,310/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO on the basis of information available from the Sales Tax Department found that certain purchases made by the assessee are bogus. The details of such transactions are as under: S. No. Name of Parties Amount (Rs.) TIN No. 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hould be treated as genuine. Without prejudice to the afore-said contentions, the assessee pleaded to estimate his income in terms of section 44AD at 8%. The AO, however, did not find any merit in the submissions of the assessee and ultimately treated the purchases made from the concerned parties aggregating to Rs. 72,76,396/- as 'unexplained expenditure' in terms of section 69C and added back to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved of the addition so made, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record observed that the A.O. may not have a clinching proof, but in view of the information obtained as a result of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely relying upon the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department has made the addition which has no basis. He submitted during the assessment proceedings the assessee had produced documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Therefore, there is no reason to treat the purchases as bogus and even estimate the profit @ 8%. He, therefore, pleaded for deletion of addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A). In support of his contention, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: Sr. No. Case Law ITA No. 1 Rajeev M Kalathil 6727/Mum/2012 2 Paresh Gandhi 5706/Mum/2013 3 Hiralal Chunilal Jain 4547/Mum/2014 4 Ganpatraj A Sanghavi 2826/Mum/2013 5 Deepak Popatlal Gala 5920/Mum/2013 6 Ramila P Shah 5246/Mum/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fail to understand if the parties were willing to appear before the A.O., what prevented the assessee in producing them before the A.O. Merely because the payments were made in cheque, it cannot be said that the transactions are genuine. It is also pertinent to mention here that the assessee had not produced any conclusive proof to establish the fact that the so called goods/materials purchased from the concerned parties were actually delivered at the sites. Therefore, in absence of any evidence to prove the fact that the assessee had actually taken delivery of goods, assessee's claim that purchases were genuine cannot be accepted. Therefore, the assessee's claim that the entire addition should have been deleted is not acceptable. At the sa....