2022 (10) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he present appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order dated 03rd May, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'E', Mumbai (ITAT), in Income Tax Appeal No.4549/Mum/2015, relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration: "6.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is perverse in not considering the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N K Protein Ltd. dated 16.01.2017, which is on the similar issue of bogus purchases and when the Hon'ble Apex Court order was already the law of the land when the Hon'ble ITAT has pronounced....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the same was not allowable? 6.5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who had limited and disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the total alleged purchase without verification and confirmation of quantitative data of material sourced and its subsequent movement during the year?" 3. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: The Assessee undertakes civil contract works awarded mostly by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Return of income was fled for the assessment year 2009-10, declaring a total income of Rs.92,36,071/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, at a total income of Rs.93,72....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of revenue. It, therefore, confirmed the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged purchases of Rs.4,50,08,383/- i.e. Rs.56,26,047/-, therefore, relief was granted to the appellant to the extent of Rs.4,50,08,383/- - Rs.56,26,047/- = Rs.3,93,82,336/-. The order of CIT (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal vide its order dated 03rd May, 2017, dismissed the same. It was held that without purchasing materials and goods, it would not have been possible on the part of the assessee to execute the contract work with the MCGM, which is a Government Authority. It also held that the A.O. had not disputed the turnover of the contract work executed by the assessee and that unless the assessee procured the materials and goods, if not from ....