2020 (9) TMI 913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 1. The order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act of the Assessing Officer is bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on record. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing his order ex-parte and dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not attend the hearing posted by him, even while, as a matter of fact, there was not a single instance of failure on the part of the Appellant to attend the hearing fixed before the learned CIT(A), without obtaining an adjournment granted by him; apart from the fact that the learned CIT(A), on his own, had adjourned the hearing 8 times, out of which twice, after hearing the case. 3. The learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the above, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the case on merit with the following observations: "6.1.7 It is important to note that appellant is carrying on the business as Civil Contractors and undertaking projects. The appellant has not furnished quantitative reconciliation. In which contract the goods have been used has not been furnished. Considering that the appellant has consumed the goods in execution of the contracts and not a trader, there cannot be any presumption that since the sales have been accepted by the AO, the purchases cannot be doubted. In the case of a trader, since the items purchased are sold as such without any processing/manufacturing/value addition, the fact that sales have been made goes to prove that the correspo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... same is insignificant and does not reflect itself as apparent or noticeable increase in the percentage of cost of consumption over sales for this year when compared with other years. 6.1.9 Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proving the genuineness of the impugned purchases of Rs. 18,77,948/- with cogent evidences. Consequently, it is held that the said purchases are unsubstantiated and have to be considered as bogus purchases which have been debited in the books of account without the actual receipt." 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that....