2024 (5) TMI 341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,82,87,633/- being 25% of material purchase. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,59,17,968/- being 25% of indirect expenses. 3. Prayer: (i) To set aside the order u/s.259 of the Act, 1961 which is requested to be quashed. (ii) To drop the addition of Rs. 3,82,87,633/- being 25% of material purchase. (iii)To drop the addition of Rs. 3,59,17,968/- being 25% of Indirect Expenses. Facts of the case: 3. The assessee filed his return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 73,64,840/-. The assessee is a Government Contractor, and his books of accounts were subject to audit u/s. 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... - Rs. 3,82,87,633/- being 25% of Material Purchase of Rs. 15,31,50,553/- - Rs. 3,59,17,968/- being 25% of Indirect Expenses of Rs. 14,36,71,872/- While making these two additions, the Assessing Officer concluded that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the genuineness of expenses could not be verified. 4. Aggrieved with the said order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 5. During the proceedings before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee failed to attend after repeated notices. 5.1. Relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. B. N Bhattacharjee and Another (10 CTR 354), the Ld.CIT (A) dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present....