TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In response, ld. AR for the assessee appeared and submitted the relevant informations as called for. 4. During assessment proceedings, AO observed that the assessee has received total contract for transportation of earth at Attibeli Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, Karnataka is for Rs. 18,07,50,932/- whereas assessee has sub-contracted the said work to 17 parties for total amount of Rs. 21,37,36,472/-. He observed that even assessee managed to execute the work order without any escalation or additional cost, it will lose Rs. 3,29,85,540/- on the abovesaid contract. He observed various abnormal features in the result declared by the assessee and in order to investigate, further summons u/s 131 of the Act were issued to several sub-contractors and service of summons were reproduced in the assessment order at pages 5 & 6. The AO observed that out of 17 sub-contractors, 16 were not found at the addresses given by the assessee. The assessee was show-caused as to explain and asked to produce sub-contractors before him. Since assessee has not produced any sub-contractors and also not submitted various documents to satisfy the AO, the AO proceeded to disallow the total exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting to Rs. 116,29,60,501/- which included revenue from transportation services amounting to Rs. 22,81,51,404/-. This ground of appeal pertains to income earned by the appellant on account of transportation services provided by it as declared in the P&L Account. It is observed that the appellant has claimed transportation/logistic charges separately under the sub-head operational cost which was amounting to Rs. 22,36,82,899/-. 11.5 The appellant submitted following details of receipts and expenditure on account of transportation services (paper book page No.53). ADITI INFRABUILD AND SERVICES LIMITED DETAILS OF TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTIC CHARGES PAID Sr.No. Name Address PAN No. Amount 1 Shri Krishan Grit Co. 521, Ring Road Mall, Delhi AASPG7488G 12,241,968.00 2 Distribution Logistics Infrasturcure Pvt. Ltd. #484, Laxmi Arcade, 2nd Floor, 27th Main, 17th Cross, HSR Layout, Sec.II, Bangalore AABCV7123P 180,750,932.00 3. Ambit Logistics Pvt.Ltd. Door No.06, 3^rd Main, 8th Cross, Venkatapura, Kormangala, Bangalre AABCM3828L 35,158,504.00 Total &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned the location of project sites in respect of which these expenses were claimed (refer PR: Page 106). The details submitted by the appellant have been perused and it is found that the receipts on account of transportation services and the transportation expenses claimed thereon have been accounted for by the appellant separately in its P&L account. The transportation services have been treated as a separate stream of revenue and break up was provided in the paper book. The AO did not make any adverse remarks in his remand report with respect to this contention of the appellant. Accordingly, I find that the allegation of the AO in the assessment order that the transportation expenses with respect to transportation services have been claimed under other heads of expenses is unsupported by any evidence and is presumptive in nature. The disallowance of 100% transportation charges on the ground that the sub-contractors were found to be bogus is too harsh. At the same time, I also find that the GP of 1% shown by the appellant is too little and devoid of commercial sense. The appellant has definitely suppressed its income by resorting to bogus bills. The issue of bogus purchases and es....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s Appeal (ITA No. 726/Del/2024) : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition to the extent of Rs. 2,61,17,059/- (12.5% of Rs. 21,37,36,472/-). On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 21,37,36,472/- made by the AO. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no notice under section 143(2) was served on the appellant within time prescribed under the law and hence the assessment order passed by the AO is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and CIT(A) erred in not holding so." "Revenue's Appeal (ITA No. 1557/Del/2024) 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in partially allowing the appeal of asses see partially without considering the facts and circumstance of this case. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,70,19,413/- (out of total addition of Rs. 21,37,36,472) being 12.5% of purchases made from bogus suppliers. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has ignored the finding of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2018 (This fact is also mentioned in first para of the assessment order). 3. As per proviso to section 143(2), no notice u/s 143(2) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. 4. In this case, the financial year in which the return was furnished is F.Y. 2016-17 and, therefore, notice u/s 143(2) could not have been issued after 30/09/2017. 5. Since, the notice u/s 143(2) in this case was issued on 23/08/2018, the same is bad-in-law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. 6. The CIT(A) has dealt with this issue in para 10 of his order and has held that notice u/s 143(2) issued was valid. The reasoning given by the CIT(A) for holding so is that original return of income was filed by the appellant on 26/09/2016. This return was found to be defective by the assessing officer and defects were removed and rectified return was filed on 12/07/2017. According to the CIT(A), the notice u/s 143(2) could have been issued upto 30/09/2018, (when reckoned from the rectified return) and, therefore, according to CIT(A), the notice u/s 143(2) issued on 23/08/2018 was va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled its return of income on 26.09.2016 and assessee also filed the order sheet and noting from the IT Portal. From the above, we noticed that the AO has considered the original return filed by the assessee as defective and notices were issued to the assessee. As per the note sheet, the assessee has rectified the same on 04.02.2017 and further finally rectified the same on 12.07.2017. We noticed that notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 23.08.2018. As per the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act, no notice u/s 143(2) can be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months form the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. The assessee has raised the above issue before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) has decided that the notice u/s 143(2) is proper. After considering the facts on record, we observed that the issue raised by the assessee is for the purpose of issue of notice u/s 143(2) the date should be reckoned from the date of original return rather finally rectified u/s 139 (9) of the Act. We observed that exact similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of SMC Comtrade Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) and they considered the exact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it and loss account as well as the balance-sheet. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the return was invalid and he set aside the assessment so far as the charging of interest was concerned and directed the Assessing Officer to charge interest on the return from the date of the return till the date of furnishing the profit and loss account and balance-sheet. On further appeal, the Tribunal found that the return filed by the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer as a legally valid return and he had acted upon the same. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On a reference made to the High Court, it was held that once the return has been found to be valid and only a defect within the meaning of section 139(9) of the Act was found then the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in levying interest. 6. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bharat Refineries Ltd., [1986] 162 ITR 652; which has been correctly followed and applied by the Tribunal. The finding recorded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the assessee may rely in support of the return: Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.]" 12.1 The financial year, in the case of the petitioner's/assessee's original return, would have ended on 31.03.2017. Six (6) months, as mandated by the proviso, would have ended on 30.09.2017. 13. Undoubtedly, the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act is time-barred. Consequently, the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act will also collapse. The impugned notices are, accordingly, quashed." 14. Further we observed that in the case of Kunal Structure (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), the Hon'ble Court has held as under :- "20. In the facts of the present case, as discussed earlier, the petitioner filed its return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act on 10.09.2016. Since the return was defective, the petitioner was called upon to remove such defects, which came to be removed on 07.07.2017, that is, within the time allowed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, upon such defects being rem....