2022 (7) TMI 1091

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-39, {for short "CIT(A)"} has been upheld. 2. The appellant has framed the following question of law for consideration: A) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting addition to the tune of Rs.4,15,22,944/- out of Rs.4,74,54,793/- added by the Assessing Officer on account of non-genuine purchases, by sustaining addition of only Rs.59,31,849/- by adopting estimated rate of 12.5% on the unexplained and nongenuine purchases? 3. Briefly stated material facts in the backdrop of which the present controversy has arisen, are as under: The respondent / assessee is involved in the ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ised and controlled the execution of works and was also subjected to audit by various wings of the Government of Maharashtra. 5. Despite the stand taken by the assessee, the A.O., upon failure of the assessee to produce the twelve parties for verification, held that the assessee in fact had not purchased the goods from the suppliers, and therefore held the purchase bills as bogus and consequently held an amount of Rs.4,74,54,793/- as non-genuine expenditure and added the same to the total taxable income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. 6. Aggrieved by the addition so made, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 09th March, 2015 allowed the appeal partially. It was held that without p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2017, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as also the cross-objection fled by the assessee and upheld the order of learned CIT(A). 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the view expressed by the Tribunal in upholding the order of learned CIT(A), dated 09th March, 2015 was untenable in law, inasmuch as the assessee had clearly failed to prove the genuineness of purchases made during the course of execution of the works, despite having been granted opportunity to produce the twelve parties before the A.O. for purposes of verification. 10. The Tribunal upheld the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) on two grounds. Firstly, that the consumption report with regard to material purchases had never been controverted by the A.O and....