TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 is filed against the order of CIT(A) dated 16.12.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 and ITA No.6773/M/2016 filed against the order of CIT(A) dated 1.9.2016. The revenue has also filed appeal No.1004/Mum/2016 against the order of ld.CIT(A) dated 16.12.2015 wherein the assessee has also filed CO no.142/Mum/2017.All these appeals, cross-appeals and cross-objection were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1495/Mum/2016 Assessment Year 2010-11 2. At the out set, the ld.AR submitted that though in the grounds of appeal the assessee has taken the issue of re-opening of the assessment but now he do not wants to press the same. Accordingly, we dismiss this groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that the stock register was duly maintained recording all the purchases and sales. The AO was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee , the books of account and the record produced by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and came to the conclusion that the purchases made from hawala dealers were not genuine and accordingly added the amount of Rs. 60,14,350/- to the total income of the assessee by framing the assessment u/s 143(3) vide assessment order dated 28.3.2014 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,00,16,980/-. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition to the extent of 10% of the bogus purchases after considering the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial placed before us including the case law relied upon by the assessee. We find that in this case, the assessee was found to be a beneficiary of hawala transactions to the tune of Rs. 60,14,350/-from two parties mentioned above, the AO added the entire amount of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee and the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchases from the concerned parties by producing the necessary documentary evidences. The notices issued to the parties u/s 133(6) were returned unserved. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of 90%of the bogus purchases. We further noticed that the AO during the assessment proceedings accepted the sales which were made out of the hawala purchases. In a case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee as to why the penalty should not be imposed for non compliance of provisions of section 44AA of the Act. Thereafter another notice was issued on 28.3.2014. The assessee replied the said notice vide letter dated 3.5.2014 by submitting that the proceedings u/s 271A of the Act were wrongly initiated as there has been no default on the part of the assessee under the provisions of section 145 of the Act. Therefore the provisions of section 271A were not applicable to the assessee as the assessee was maintaining the regular books of accounts which were duly audited by the Auditors of the company. However, the reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and he levied penalty by holding that the assessee has committed default without r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....losed profit in bogus purchases of Rs. 7,51,794/-. The ld. AR also submitted before us that the conclusion and findings of the FAA that the assessee has failed to maintain the books of account in accordance with the provisions of section 44AA were incorrect and contrary to the facts on records. In the present case, we find that the auditor of the company have not made any adverse comments on the books of account maintained by the assessee and duly certified the books ofthe assessee. Under these circumstances, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) that the penalty u/s 271A is rightly imposed by the AO. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld.CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the order of t....