TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12. In all appeals, the assessee has raised the identical grounds of appeal. The facts for all AYs are almost similar except the variation of figures of addition. Considering the common grounds of appeal, similar facts in appeal all were heard together and are decided by common order to avoid to the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, we are referring the facts for AY 2007-08 in ITA No. 2121/Mum/2016. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Id. CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 43,84,084/- on account of unexplained expenditure paid by the Appellant without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned CIT ( A) further erred in alleging that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king a certain additions and disallowances assessing the total income at Rs. 13,55,16,460/- . Subsequently, the assessment was opened u/s 147 of the Act. The notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2013 was served upon the assessee. The assessment was re-opened as a survey action was carried on the premises of the assessee on 14.02.2013 and during the survey Sh. Balkrishna Wardhawan to admit certain purchase as nongenuine. During the survey statement Balkrishna Wardhawan was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, wherein he has offered (declared) income of Rs. 7.03 Crore. In response the notice under section 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 09.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 13,02,49,682/-. The AO completed the re-assessment proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities. The AO as well as ld. CIT(A) disallowed the purchases without appreciating the fact that assessee has consumed the material in execution of project. The ld. AR of the assessee specifically relied upon the sub-para (vi) of para-5 of order of AO. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of his submission further filed a written synopsis and relied upon certain decisions of Tribunal, as referred in his written submission. The written submissions of the assessee are also taken on record. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. It was argued that during the survey action u/s 133(A) statement of Shri Balkrishna Wardhawan was recorded. In his statement Shri Balkrishna Wardhawan admitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hawala dealer Amount of purchases (Rs.) 1 M/s. Allied Industries 98,100 2 M/s Amar Enterprises 2,09,250 3 M/s. Geeta Enterprises 28,54,865 4 M/s. Gallent Traders Pvt. Ltd. 1,70,213 5 M/s. Ishita Enterprises 6,440 6 M/s. Alstom Trading Co. P. Ltd. 10,45,216 Total: 43,84,084 The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to all the parties. However, no reply was received; the assessee was asked to produce the parties for verification. The assessee failed to produce the parties for verification. On show-cause notice as to why the aggregate of purchases be not treated as unexplained expenditure, the assessee furnished its reply dated 10.02.2014. In the reply the assessee contended that all the purchases were made through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is not the issue and these alleged purchases are not being treated as bogus." The Sales Tax Department has come down hard on the pernicious practices indulged in by these unscrupulous traders figuring in the list of suspicious dealers and it is evident that the assessee has not purchased the goods from these alleged suppliers. It is equally true that the goods have somehow entered in the assessee's regular business. The assessee has been unable to give any convincing or cogent explanation as to how these goods happened to come in his possession. The assessee has, thus, incurred expenditure on such purchases which is not explained. The purchases are not treated as bogus or sham rather the expenditure incurred on such purchases is treated a....