TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um of Rs. 52,02,655/- from the closing WIP in respect of certain purchases alleged as bogus by the Id. Assessing Officer without appreciating the evidences placed on record. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)and Assessing Officer erred in facts and law in not appreciating that the appellant had duly discharged its onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and utilisation thereof in the business of the appellant and accordingly no disallowance was warranted. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Assessing Officer erred in facts and law in relying upon the statement of certain persons without appreciating the defects pointed out therein and without affording the appellant any opportunity of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT in SLP (Civil) No.769/2017 dated 16.01.2017." 6. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that purchases were made from some other parties which were not recorded in the books of accounts and only accommodation bills were obtained from hawala parties and there by attracting provisions of section 10A(3}." 7. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that applicability of provisions of 40A(3) attracts 100% bogus purchases to be held as profit." 8. "The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set asi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction declared at Rs. 2812.07/- per sq.ft. of the assessee approximates the average rate of it sister concern - Triveni Properties accepted at Rs. 2907/-per sq.ft., where there is no allegation of bogus purchases. Also, the project of both these concerns are in the same vicinity i.e. Kamothe, Navi Mumbai. Accordingly, the Id. CIT(A) has disallowed 6.5% on purchases where the VAT rate is 4% and 15% of purchases where the VAT rate is 12.5% based on the rationale laid down by the ITAT in the case of Simit P Sheth (supra) and approved by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The said disallowance is worked out at Rs. 52,02,655/-. (Refer page 39 of CIT(A) order)." 9. Since the assessee had not claimed any purchases as deduction for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of construction of the building. 13. It was argument of learned AR that the non-service of notice u/s. 133(6) could not be viewed adversely against the assessee in view of the decision in the case of CIT v. Orrisa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) and CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bom.). The Assessing Officer had not provided the opportunity of cross examining - Slid. Chandrakant Dheiai, on whose statement reliance was placed. Further, the said party was a MVAT defaulter and accordingly to avoid the consequences of default may have given such a statement. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. M/s. Ashish International (ITA no. 4299 of 2009) (Bom.) and H.R. Mehta v.....