2016 (2) TMI 1021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee has also filed cross-objection thereto. 2. Facts relating to the issue are that the assessee filed return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 61,96,310/-. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Civil Contractor under the name and style of M/s Hydrotech Projects and People. The assessee, in the return of income stated sources of income as income from house property, business income and income from other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown purchases to the tune of Rs. 20,74,957/-. Doubting the genuineness of the transactions, the AO called the assessee to furnish details of these purchase. The assessee furnished all the relevant deta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owed the purchases and added it to the income of the assessee is without basis. Since all the details relating to purchases made during the year have been furnished to the AO, assessee is entitled for deduction of these purchases. The assessee has also filed written submissions before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that only on the basis of statement given by Mr.Makwana, of M/s Worth Traders, from whom the assessee purchased material worth Rs. 2,58,604/- and because of his statement before the Sales tax authorities that purchases are not genuine. The AO solely relied on the statement so made by third party behind the back of the assessee and without enquiring the details in respect of other parties added full amount to the income of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urchases are not genuine;. h) The AO did not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has received cash out of the bill receipts; i) While coming to conclusion, the ld.CIT(A) relied on the following decisions: i) CIT V/s M K Brothers -163 ITR 249(Guj); ii) ITO V/s Permanand 107 TTJ 395, ITAT Jodhpur Bench; iii) Diagnostics V/s CIT (334 ITR 111) Calcutta High Court; iv) YFC Project Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT 46 DTR 496/134 TTJ 167 (Del); v) Free India Assurance Services Ltd V/s DCIT 62 DTR 349 /(2011)12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum); vi) Rajmal Lakhichand V/s ACIT 79 ITD 84 vii) Kishinchand Chellaram V/s CIT 125 ITR713 (Supreme Court) viii) Kanchanwala Gems -122 TTJ 854, Jaipur Bench ITAT; ix) Babulal C Borana V/s ITO (282....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iture could not be proved satisfactorily unless both the situations are found in a case, Section 69C will not be applicable." 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Before us the ld.AR reiterated the facts as submitted before the ld.CIT(A) and relied on the decision of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR also submitted that the issue raised in this appeal had come up before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, in assessee's own case in DCIT V/s Rajeev G Kalathil in ITA No.6727/Mum/2012 (AY-2009-10) dated 20.8.2014 and the Tribunal has decided this issue favour of the assessee. The ld. AR also relied on the decision of Mumbai Benches of Tribunal in ITO V/s Shree Deepak Popatlal Gala in ITA No.5920/Mum/201....