TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer having failed to appreciate that the appellant had substantiated the purchase made by way of substantive evidence such as inward records, delivery, bark payments etc. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not giving credence to the facts that some summons to the parties were returned as "Unclaimed" thereby justifying the existence of the party. 3. The CIT(A) failed to give weightage to the fact that when the very same parties have declared to the VAT authorities that they have given accommodation bills which also bear their respective VAT and CST registration number, their existence cannot be denied and hence their refusal to accept summons proves their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....change all or any above grounds or before the hearing of the appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2010 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 13,58,61,222/- alongwith audited statement of Account and Tax Audit Report in form No. 3CB & 3CD. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of developers and contractors. As per the information received from the Sales Tax Department Maharashtra Government, the assessee has taken hawala entries from various parties for bogus purchase. The assessee was found to purchase the material from seve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the income of the assessee which was confirmed by the CIT(A) in appeal. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee has produced the books of account and bills etc., but the same were not considered, therefore, the purchase was not bogus hence the addition is liable to be deleted. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the department has argued that the assessee failed to prove the purchase before the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the order of the AO hence appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. It is a case of bogus purchase in which the addition was made on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government. Subsequently, the notices ....