TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of builder and developer. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee firm had made purchases of materials from various dealers which were included in work-in-progress account and hence not claimed as expenditure in the profit & loss account. However, the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the information received from the Sales Tax department treated these parties as having been engaged in the activity of merely issuing bills without actual delivery of goods, accordingly added entire amount of such purchases in assessee's income. 3. By the impugned order CIT(A) restricted the addition of bogus purchases to the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risa 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 Shn. Chandrakant Dherai, 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 was 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. ACIT [2016] 387 ITR 561 (Bom.) 7. As per learned AR, Section 48(5) of MVAT Act shifts the burden of paying MVAT to the purchaser of goods on the seller giving such a deposition of issuing bogus bills. He accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es) as indicated at page 184 of the paper book based on the information received from the sales tax department. The AO issued notices u/s. 133(6) which were returned unserved. In response to notice issued u/s.133(6), during the first appellate proceeding, the assessee had submitted following additional evidences (refer page 74 to 146 of the Paper Book) on 06-08-2014. * Copy of architect 's certificate certifying the consumption of material * Quantitative details of material purchased. 12. The additional evidences were forwarded by CIT(A) to AO on 13.08.2014 and report was called for before 29.08.2014. Reminders dated 13.01.2015 and 14.12.2015 were also sent by the Id. CIT(A). However, no remand report was received t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....KPL wherein the endorsement was on the back of the cheques. Blank bill books, letter heads and vouchers of these concerns were found and seized from the factory premises of NKPL. 16. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we found that cost of construction shown by the assessee was Rs. 2,958/- as against the cost of construction shown by the sister concern M/s. Triveni Properties with the project in the same vicinity having average cost at 2907/- per sq.ft. wherein there is not allegation of purchases from bogus suppliers. Even though learned AR relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of Triveni Himes dated 13/02/2018, wherein addition was restricted to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases, but we foun....