TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. There has been a delay of 54 days on the part of the assessee to file this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condoning the above delay. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit, we find that there was genuine difficulty on the part of the assessee to file the appeal in time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 54 days by the assessee to file the appeal. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,54,42,911/- made by the AO u/s 69C of the Act of Rs. 23,16,437/- @ 15% of total bogus purchases of Rs. 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ential purpose, as two different houses and thereby making an addition of Rs. 2,52,000/- under the head Income from House Property. 5. Without prejudice to Ground no 4, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in determining the annual value of Flat no. 606 in Kalyan Tower CHS at Rs. 3,60,000/- on the basis of some alleged market enquiry without providing the appellant any details or information or finding or basis of such market enquiries. 6. Without prejudice to Ground No. 4 & 5, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in determining the annual value of Flat no. 606 in Kalyan Tower CHS at Rs. 3,60,000/- whereas per his own alleged market enquiry property is capable of fe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence to establish genuineness of purchases made from the said parties. In view of the above, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,54,42,911/- u/s 69C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 15% of the said bogus purchases of Rs. 1,54,42,911/- which comes to Rs. 23,16,437/-. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the assessee failed to produce before the AO the said parties for examination. This was required as the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) to the said parties in the address given by the AO were returned unserved by the postal authorities. Also it is stated by him that the assessee failed to file the evidence befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we hold that the AO has rightly issued notice u/s 148. The 1st ground of appeal of the assessee is thus dismissed. 7.1 Now we come to the 1st ground of appeal of the Revenue and the 2nd and 3rd ground of appeal of the assessee. The fact remains that after the notice u/s 133(6) issued by the AO came back unserved by the postal authorities, he had requested the assessee to produce the above parties for examination. The assessee failed to produce the above parties before the AO. We are of the considered view that the contentious issues in the instant case could be resolved by examining the above parties. It is the duty of the AO to enforce attendance of a witness if his evidence is material. At the same time the assessee must furnish the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r giving opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the concerned parties. We also direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO. Needless to say the AO would give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before finalizing the assessment order. As the above issues have been restored to the file of the AO to make a fresh assessment, we are not adverting to the case laws relied on by the Ld. counsels. Thus the 1st ground of appeal of the Revenue and the 2nd and 3rd ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. We now turn to the 4th, 5th and 6th ground of appeal of the assessee and deal them together as they address a common issue. The AO found that the assessee was own....