TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purchases. 2. The Learned C.I.T. (A) erred in law and in facts in disallowing the genuine purchases which were used in the construction work and the payments were made by A/c Payee cheques. 3. The Learned C.I.T. (A) erred in law and on facts confirming the averments made by the A.O. in the assessment order. 4. The order passed by the learned C.I.T. (A) is bad in law." 3. At the outset, the Bench raised a query on the counsel of the assessee qua the appeal of the assessee being time barred by 1085 days, to which the learned AR admitted and tried to explain the said delay by referring to the copy of the affidavit and other evidences filed for explaining the said delay. The learned AR submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lete bed rest from time to time. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly objected to the admission of appeal as the same is delayed extraordinarily by 1087 days and, moreover, the assessee has failed miserably to explain the delay in filing the appeal. He therefore, contended that the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed as being time barred. 5. We have heard rival submissions and have carefully perused the relevant material available on record. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 1087 days, which has been submitted to be on account of poor health of the then partner Shri Jayesh M Dedhia, who suffered a heart attack and had been advised complete bed rest. The delay is also stated to be attributed to the resignation of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the CIT(A) ignoring the fact that all these purchases were genuine and the material purchased were used in the construction activity and the payment to the parties were made by account payee cheques. 7. The facts in brief are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the parties to verify the purchases by the assessee. However, the notices in respect of three parties, viz. M/s. Ratnadeep Tubes, Veer Industries and Chetna Enterprises from whom purchases totalling to Rs. 29,47,054/- were made, returned un-served by the postal authorities. The assessee was asked to produce these parties in order to verify them and prove the genuineness of the transactions. However, the assessee vide lette....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O., then in order to buy peace of mind, the appellant would offer to add value of purchases amounting to Rs. 29,47,054/-. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra & Co. vs. CIT (35 Taxmann 153) (Bom)168 ITR 375, held that where an assessee has made a statement of facts, he can have no grievance if the taxing authority taxes him in accordance with the statement. In the present case, the appellant had voluntarily offered the value of purchases to be added to his total income and there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was forced or coerced or influenced in filing a letter before the A.O. Even on this account, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the A.O. The action of the A.O.....