TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al filed by the Revenue read as under: - 1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of bogus purchases to the extent of Rs. 12,90,55,849/- without third party confirmation or production of any other clinching evidence regarding material consumption during the course of survey or assessment proceedings. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in negating without sufficient reason the finding that no delivery challan could be produced during survey, leading to the assessee's statement of confirmation regarding absence of records, duly reconfirmed by various party's deposition bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 4 parties, no reply was received by the AO. 3.1 During the survey action u/s 133A conducted in the business premises of the assessee 07.01.2013, it was noticed that the assessee had made bogus purchases from the parties identified by the Sales Tax Department as non-genuine to the tune of Rs. 6,34,56,488/- in the impugned assessment year. The AO noted that no reply was received in respect of the query put by him to the assessee. Thereafter, the AO asked the AR of the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 23.01.2013 to (i) submit the details of 23 parties from whom information as sought u/s 133(6) could not be ascertained, (ii) produce the parties, (iii) submit their income tax particulars and (iv) file copies of their bank accounts. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned at para 5.6 of the appellate order dated 30.05.2014 that the assessee had submitted the following documents:- a. Ledger Account confirmation of all the parties along with sample copies of invoices issued; b. Copies of purchase order; c. Proof of payment made by account payee cheque; d. Copies of TDS certificates in respect of all the payments made to sub-contractor; e. Sample copies of work order issued by MCGM whereby the very same material purchased from these parties are certified to be used for garden maintenance and development.; f. The sales effected were cross linked with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the disallowance made by the AO of bogus purchase to Rs. 19,52,056/- as against Rs. 13,10,07,905/- made by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR relies on the order dated 16.01.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017TIOL-23-SC-IT]. The Ld. DR further submits that in the instant case the assessee has made bogus purchases and the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous on facts as well as in law and the principle laid down in N.K. Proteins Ltd. (supra) squarely covers the case of the revenue. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsels of the assessee submit that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted complete details of purchases such as ledger account, copy of the concerned par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected for scrutiny in CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served on the assessee. In response to the said notices, Shri Rajesh Agarwal, Chartered Accountant & Shri Kamal Sharma, Chartered Accountant from M/s Sara & Associates, Chartered Accountants attended and filed the details called for'. The AO has also mentioned at page 12 of the assessment order that the assessee filed confirmations in regular format on 26.03.2013. Thus we find that the documents filed before the Ld. CIT(A) were available to the AO. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has analysed those documents and arrived at a finding. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 46A (3) of the I.T. Rules 1962 by the Ld. CIT(A). So We dismiss the 3rd ground of appeal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies other than those mentioned in the books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly estimated and restricted the disallowance to Rs. 19,52,056/- as against Rs. 13,10,07,905/- made by the AO. We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus the 1st, 2nd, & 5th ground of appeal are dismissed. 8. Now we turn to the 4th ground of appeal. The issue is penalty in respect of breach of contract. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court....