2019 (3) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee in this appeal is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under subcontracting expenses of Rs..5,38,72,144/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 30.10.2015 admitting a total income of Rs..1,39,89,350/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] dated 04.08.2016 was duly served on the assessee on 11.08.2016. After verification of details furnished by the assessee, by considering the report of the ITI, the Assessing Officer held the subcontracting expenses of Rs..5,38,72,144/- as bogus expenses and brought to tax. 3. On....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue nature of the transaction between M/s. Vishwakarma Real Estates and Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Mayan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Inspector of Income Tax was sent to serve notice under section 133(6) of the Act dated 22.11.2017 at the address of M/s. Mayan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., as furnished by the Authorised Representative. However, the notice could not be served, since, no company by the name of M/s. Mayan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., was found at the address provided by the Authorised Representative. On enquiry, the Authorised Representative submitted that, the company had shifted from the earlier given address and furnished the New address i.e. No.9, Seshadri Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. One accountant by name Shr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cting expense claimed by the assessee was disallowed as bogus expenses. 6. Before the ld. CIT(A) assessee has has submitted a copy of the IT return filed by M/s. Mayan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. along with P&L account and B/S with all the schedules therein. By considering the income tax return and assessment of the latter company, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. We find from the appellate order that the ld. CIT(A) has not made any effort to get the authenticity of existence of the latter company M/s. Mayan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. or the assessee has furnished any details about the existence of the latter company. In this case, since the turnover of M/s. Mayan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was more or less wit....