2020 (1) TMI 863

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the submissions filed by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. The addition sustained by the Learned CIT (Appeal) without appreciating the facts & submission is totally arbitrary and has no basis as the same was made only on the basis of the information received from ITO, Mehsana, without examine the facts as an quasi judicial Authority. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 22,28,600/- alleging the same as bogus purchases made from CNS Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. on suspicion and arbitrarily without any evidence on record. 3. That the lower authority erred on the facts of the case & as per law, in making addition in the returned income which is not referable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....count. Likewise amount received from M/s. GHCL Ltd., and M/s. Suzlon Infrastructure Services Ltd., has been shown under the head "contract receipts". The assessee has shown profit on M/s. Safeco Projects Pvt. Ltd.,at Rs. 46,40,711/-. The A.O. noted that survey operation was carried out at Kolkata in the case of M/s. Safeco Projects Pvt. Ltd., by the Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Mehsana while making enquiries in the case of M/s. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad. The report of ITO, Mehsana was forwarded to DGIT (Inv.) New Delhi by the DDIT (Inv.) Unit-IV(1), Ahmedabad through letter dated 24.01.2011. As per the report of ITO (Inv.) Mehsana, a statement of the Director of M/s. Safeco Projects Pvt. Ltd., Shri Aditya Chirmar was recorded on 05.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....transaction is M/s. Suzlon Infrastructure Services Ltd., and no information have been received with respect to any action has been taken against them, therefore, to protect the interests of Revenue, the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 4,39,90,559/- in the hands of assessee-company on protective basis. The A.O. further noted that as per information received from the O/o. DIT (Inv.), New Delhi, the details of which have been received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai that assessee has booked bogus expenses from M/s. CNS Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., of Rs. 22,28,600/-. This fact has been admitted by the concerned provider of bogus bills in his statement. The A.O. accordingly made addition of Rs. 22,28,600/-. The assessee challenged both these additions ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-examination have been provided to assessee. He has, therefore, submitted that Order have been passed by the authorities below without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that it is also not clear as to in which case the addition have been made on substantive basis. Therefore, the matter requires re-consideration at the level of the A.O. 6. The Ld. D.R. in view of these facts also suggested that since she is not able to get information as to in whose case substantive addition have been made and as to what happened to substantive addition, therefore, matter may be remanded to the file of A.O. for passing the Order afresh, as per Law. 7. Considering the facts o....