Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: due date for vat payment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT RATES :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

A C I T - 25(2) C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Room No. 108, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Vs. Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod B-1, Neela Apartment Respondent S.V.P. Road, Borivali
January, 14th 2016
               ""   
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI
           ,                         ,      
       BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM
             AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

      ./ITA Nos. 3717 & 5297/Mum/2013
  ( /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively)

   A C I T - 25(2)
   C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan
   Room No. 108, Bandra Kurla Complex          /Appellant
   Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051
                   / Vs.


   Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod
                                                /
   B-1, Neela Apartment
                                              Respondent
   S.V.P. Road, Borivali (W)
      ./PAN - AACPR4164L


        / Appellant by:         Shri Chandra Vijay
       / Respondent by:         Shri D.C. Sejpal

          /Date of Hearing                    : 28.09.2015
         /Date of Pronouncement               : 13.01.2015

                         / O R D E R


  PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM :-

     Both these appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to same

  assessee. Therefore they are being disposed of by this

  common order for the sake of convenience.
                                    2
                                            ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                 Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

ITA No. 3717/Mum/2013 : AY 2009-10

2.          In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following

grounds: -

     "(i)     On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
              and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
              addition of `2,22,352/- on account of deemed rent
              by accepting additional evidence under Rule 46A
              without giving an opportunity to the A.O. for fresh
              verification.
     (ii)     On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
              and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
              addition of `1,14,6632/- to `43,709/- without
              appreciating the facts that the provision of Rule 8D
              states that all assets which do not fetch any
              income or fetches income that does not form part of
              the total income is also included while calculating
              the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule
              8D.
     (iii)    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
              and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
              addition of `10,00,000/- on account of labour
              charges without appreciating the fact that the
              assessee has made payments in cash and its
              genuineness as well relation of it with business is
              not proved."

3.      The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is an

individual and filed his return of income on 30.09.2009

declaring total income of `2,39,06,248/- in Assessment Year

2009-10. Subsequently, Assessing Officer selected the case

for scrutiny and completed assessment under section 143(3)
                                  3
                                           ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

of   the   Act     determining   total   income    of   assessee      at

`2,69,38,090/-. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the

concerned CIT(A) wherein the CIT(A) has granted substantive

relief, which are being discussed below.

4.     First issue is with regard to rent income from three

parties. The Assessing Officer estimated the annual value of

deemed let out in respect of three parties:-

            i.     Flat at Sushila Apt.        `5,79,600/-
            ii.    Flat at Trishna Tower       `31,59,930/-
            iii.   Bunglow at Jalore           `3,00,000/-

                           Total               `40,39,530/-
            Annual value of the Flats          ` 3,43,630/-
            Less 30% Int. u/s 24(a)            ` 1,03,008/-
            Deemed let out income              ` 2,40,352/-

     Thus the Assessing Officer disallowed `2,40,352/- on

account of deemed let out income and added back the same

to the income of the assessee.

4.1 In appeal the CIT(A) observed that this issue also arose

in 2008-09 in assessee's on case and part relief was granted

by CIT(A) by observing as under: -

     "I. Have considered the submissions of representative
     and the stand taken by the A.O. The A.O. merely stated
                             4
                                      ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                           Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

  in the assessment order that the appellant was
  confronted on this issue and he agreed for addition. If
  that is the case the A.O. should have mentioned the
  letter or order sheet entry by which the appellant was
  confronted and the manner of agreement by the
  assessee either in the form of letter or by signing in the
  order sheet. In the absence of the above, I accept the
  plea of the representative that the addition was made
  without giving opportunity to the appellant violating the
  principles of natural justice. A perusal of the case
  records submitted by the A.O. reveals that no such
  opportunity was given to the appellant. In the
  circumstances, the entire addition is liable to be deleted
  for violation of principles of natural justice. However
  considering the argument of the representative that the
  flat at Vaishali Apartment was not given possession, I
  hold that the flat at Sushila Apartment can be treated as
  self occupied. Accordingly, only the bungalow of Jalore
  in the native place of the appellant is to be considered.
  In the absence of municipal ratable value, I direct the
  A.O. to assess Rs. 15,000/- as deemed rent u/s.23(4) of
  the I.T.Act and the balance addition is deleted."
  Since the issue is same, the annual ratable value in
  respect of bungalow at Jalore in the native place of the
  appellant is to be considered. Last year the CIT(A) had
  directed the AO to asses ratable value at Rs.15,000/-.
  Keeping in view the inflationary tendency in the market,
  the amount is being increased by 20% in the present
  assessment year, which comes to Rs,18,000/-.
  Accordingly, AO is directed to assess Rs.18,000/- as
  deemed rent u/s.23(4) of the I.T. Act,1961 and the
  balance addition of Rs.2,22,352/- (Rs.2,40,352 -
  Rs.2,40,352 - `18,000/- is deleted.

  5.   In the result, this ground of the appellant is Partly
       Allowed."

4.2 Department did not prefer any appeal on this point. The

learned A.R. for the assessee supported the order of the
                                 5
                                      ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                           Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

CIT(A) on the issue, which was opposed by Revenue, inter

alia, submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting

the addition to `2,22,352/- on account of deemed rent.

Accordingly order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the

Assessing Officer be restored.


4.3 After going through the rival submissions and material

on record we incline to interfere with the finding of the

CIT(A). We find that the annual ratable value in respect of

bungalow at Jalore in the native place of assessee is the core

question before us. Following the decision in the earlier year

CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to assess the ratable

value at `15,000/- keeping in view the inflationary trend in

the market, the amount being increased by 20% in the year

under consideration which comes to `18,000/- Accordingly

Assessing Officer was directed to assess `18,000/- as deemed

rent under section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act and balance

addition of `2,22,352/- (`2,40,352 - `18,000) was directed to

be deleted. This reasoned finding of CIT(A), whereby he

granted partial relief to the assessee, need no interference

from our side. We uphold the same.
                                    6
                                             ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                  Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

5.     Next issue is with regard to restricting addition of

`1,14,622/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing

Officer has disallowed `1,14,622/- vide para `k' of the

assessment order. While doing so the Assessing Officer relied

on the judgement of Chem Investment Ltd. vs. ITO 317 ITR

86 (AT) (Del) and Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. 9TA No.

8057/Mum/2003. The Assessing Officer calculated the

disallowance under section 14A which is reproduced as

under: -

     "From the record it is seen that the investments which
     generates exempt income has been made out of his
     personal account and he has not claimed any expenses
     on account of interest
     S.No.               Particulrs               Amt. (Rs.)    Amt. (Rs.)
     1     Amount of expenses directly
           related to the income
     A     Amount of interest expenses 1A        NIL
     B1    Investment of 08-09 (the figures      2,24,63,898
           supplied by the AR of the assessee)
     B2    Investment of 09-10                   2,33,84,938
     B     Average value investment {B=B1        2,29,24,418
           +B2/2)
     C1    Assets as on 08-09                    NA
     C2    Assets as on 09-10                    NA
     C     Average of total assets {C = (C1 +    NA
           C2)/2}
     2     Attributable indirect interest                          NIL
           expenses {A*B/C)
     3     ½% of the average value of                           1,14,622
           investment
           Disallowance u/s. 14A {1 = 2 = 3}                    1,14,622
                                7
                                      ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                           Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

In view of this `1,14,622/- was added to the income of the
assessee.
5.1 The matter was carried before the first Appellate

Authority wherein after considering various submissions of

the assessee and comparative analysis of the facts of the case

it was found the ratio of case law relied upon by the

Assessing Officer is not applicable in the present case. The

computation made by the assessee and filed during the

course of appellate proceedings was found to be in order.

Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

was restricted to `42,709/- and the balance of `71,913/-

(`1,14,622 - `42,709/-) was deleted. Thus CIT(A) grated

partial relief in this issue.

5.2 The learned D.R. supported the order of the Assessing

Officer and submitted that CIT(A) was not justified in

restricting the addition to `42,709/- instead of `1,14,622/-.

On the other hand, the learned A.R. for the assessee

supported the order of the CIT(A).

5.3 After going through the rival submissions and material

on record we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of
                                 8
                                          ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                               Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

the CIT(A) because only after analyzing the facts of the case

he rightly restricted the disallowance to `42,709/- instead of

`1,14,622/- for reasons discussed above. The same is

upheld.

6.     Next issue is with regard to addition on account of

labour charges. Assessing Officer disallowed `10,00,000/-

under the head `Labour Charges' vide para (b) of his order.

While doing so he observed as under: -

     "Disallowance out of labour charges:
     The assessee firm has debited Rs.2,45,55,199/0 under
     the head labour charges. During the course of
     assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon
     to file details of labour charges claimed along with
     details of TDS made thereon and justification for
     allowability of the claim made by the assessee under
     this head. The assessee firm has filed details of labour
     charges on verification of which it is noticed that the
     assessee has claimed to have made payments to number
     of parties and some of the payments have been made by
     way of cash. It is not ascertainable from the details filed
     by the assessee as to for which site how many labourers
     were employed and apparently, there is no check over
     the claim made by the assessee for such a huge claim
     made under this head. The assessee submitted during
     the hearing that the increase in labour charges as
     compared to turnover was due to the labour intensive
     nature of the works undertaken this year. Considering
     the fact that many payments have been made by cash
     and not all the vouchers are produced by the assessee
     for verification, on reasonable basis an amount of
                              9
                                       ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                            Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

  Rs.10,000,000/- out of total claim made by the assessee
  is disallowed and added to the total income of the
  assessee."
  Thus the Assessing Officer disallowed `10,00,000/- under

the head `Labour Charges' because on scrutiny of the details

filed by the assessee Assessing Officer found that some of the

payments were made by way of cash. Assessing Officer was

also of the opinion as to how many labourers were employed

in various sites. The stand of the assessee has been that the

Assessing   Officer   has   not   pointed   out    any     specific

discrepancy regarding utilization of labourers in various sites

of the assessee.

6.1 In appeal, CIT(A) observed that Assessing Officer has not

made any specific observation that labour expenses made by

the assessee were not genuine. The labour charges debited

are as per the Audit Report under section 44AB submitted

before the Assessing Officer along with the return of income.

The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect

in the details even in respect of a single party. Even the

Assessing Officer did not issue any show cause notice to the

assessee before making addition to the total income of the
                                 10
                                         ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                              Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

assessee. In view of this, Assessing Officer was not justified

in disallowing the same by observed that the same were

made in cash. In fact, in such business labor expenses are

made in cash, Assessing Officer has not made out any case

as to whether cash payment were in excess of `20,000/- and

were hit by provisions of section 40(A)(3) of the Act. In case

that transaction was found to be genuine and identity of

payee was established and that payment was not exceeding

the prescribed limit, then disallowance under section 40A(3)

of the Act cannot be made. Assessee had made the payment

to labour contractor and no single payment exceeded

Rs.10,000/-. It is well known that labour needs the cash

payment urgently and contractor is required to pay the same

in cash to avoid labour problems.

6.2 Keeping    in   view   the    totality   of   the   facts     and

circumstances of the case, CIT(A) was justified in upholding

the disallowance in question. This reasoned finding of the

CIT(A) need no interference from our side. We uphold the

same.

7.   In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
                                   11
                                            ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                 Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod


ITA No. 5297/Mum/2013 : AY 2010-11

8.     In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following

     grounds: -

     "(i)    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
             and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
             addition of Rs.4,90,000/- which was made by
             invoking the provisions of IT Act by treating the
             income as Rs 18,000."

     (ii)    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
             and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
             addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- which was made
             by     way of reasonable estimation keeping the
             nature of business in mind.

     (iii)   On the fads and in the circumstances of the case
             and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred deleting the
             addition of Rs. 14,86,000/- which was made by
             invoking the provisions section 39 of the IT Act by
             treating penalty payments as not allowable
             expenses.

     (iv)    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
             and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the
             addition of Rs.10,00,000/- which was made by
             invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.
             Act by treating the payments was not done in cash.

     (v)     On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
             and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
             addition of Rs.23,84,864/- which was made by
             invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the I.T.
             Act by treating that TDS was deducted on the
             transport charges payments.
                                 12
                                          ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                               Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

     (vi)   On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
            and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
            addition of Rs.8,62,069/- which was made for not
            furnishing the related to agriculture income.

     (vii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
           and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
           addition of Rs.2,16,32,610/- which was made by
           invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I.T.
           Act by treating the purchase are genuine.

     (viii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
            and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the
            addition of Rs.4,48,89,991/- which was made by
            invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I.T.
            Act by treating the subcontract charges as genuine.

     (ix)   On the fects and in the circumstances of the case
            and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
            addition of Rs.30,68,920/- which was made by
            invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I.T.
            Act by treating the purchase are genuine even
            when the notice u/s 133(6) was returned unserved
            and address was not available at the address.

     (x)    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
            and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon
            judgments of the CIT vs.            Nikunj     Eximp
            Enterprises IM. Ltd. without appreciating that the
            facts involved in the of the appellant's case are
            different from the facts of the above case laws."

9.     The first issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is

against the deletion of Rs.4,90,000/- which was made by the

Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of Income-tax Act by

treating the income as Rs.18,000/-. We have already decided
                                 13
                                        ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                             Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

this issue for AY 2009-10, in paragraph Nos.4 to 4.3 of this

order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, we

are not inclined to interfere in the findings of CIT(A) in this

year as well wherein CIT(A) has granted the similar relief on

same line. We uphold the order of CIT(A) on this issue in this

year as well.


10. Next issue is with regard to bogus sub-contract

expenses of `50,00,000/-. Assessing Officer vide para. 6 &7

of   his   order   has    made    an   estimated     addition      of

Rs.50,00,000/- on account of bogus payments to sub-

contracts allegedly "booked by the assessee". Assessee had

claimed    sub-contract    expenses    of    Rs.15,68,98,517/-.

Assessing Officer found that many of such sub-contractors

are having turnover of less than Rs. 40 lakhs and their

Income was offered mostly under section 44AD of the Act.

Assessing Officer has also observed that large numbers of

parties belongs to different group of families as ascertained

from residential address and/or surname of the parties. For

this reason, Assessing Officer held that the assessee is using

the names of members of different families for reducing the
                                  14
                                         ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                              Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

assessee's overall tax liabilities. According to the Assessing

Officer, the individual members hardly found to pay any

actual taxes after claiming deductions and tax benefits.

Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the turnover of

the individual members are kept below `40 lakhs for dual

purposes - firstly to get rid of statutory audit which would

require documentary evidences of any work done and

secondly - to have small income in the hands of such

individuals. Assessing Officer has held that the assessee was

indulging in tax evasion by reducing the tax liability by

inflating the expenditure through introducing certain bogus

and   non-verifiable   expenditure     under    the    head     "sub-

contract". For these reasons Assessing Officer made an

estimated disallowance of `50,00,000/- which accordingly to

him represents bogus amount of sub-contract booked by

assessee. The matter was carried before the first Appellate

Authority wherein various contentions were raised on behalf

of the assessee and having considered the same CIT(A)

granted relief to the assessee.
                              15
                                      ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                           Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod




10.1 The same has been opposed before us, inter alia, stating

that under the facts and circumstances of the case CIT(A)

erred in deleting addition of `50,00,000/-, which was made

by way of estimation keeping the nature of business in mind.

On the other hand, the learned A.R. for the assessee

supported the order of the CIT(A).

10.2 After going through the rival submissions and material

on record we find that the Assessing Officer has not brought

anything on record to verify the genuineness of the payment.

He has not made any effort to verify whether such expenses

were incurred for business purpose or not. Once the

genuineness of expenditure has not been disputed such

adhoc addition is not justified and such addition can be

made only by bringing some material on record to justify the

same, which has not been done in this case. Therefore the

CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of `50,00,000/-

and the same is upheld.

11. Next issue is with regard to addition of `14,86,000/-

made by Assessing Officer by treating penalty payments as

not allowable expenses. Assessing Officer has disallowed this
                             16
                                      ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                           Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

amount paid by assessee by way of penalty for delay in

execution of contracts to the contractor. Similar issue arose

in A.Y. 2008-09 wherein ITAT "D" Bench, Mumbai, vide their

order in ITA No. 4390/Mum/2011 dated 04.04.2002 have

decided the issued by observing as under: -

  "...... There is no dispute that the said amount of
  `42,03,426 has been paid by the assessee on account of
  delay in execution of civil contract entered into by the
  assessee with MCGM. Therefore the amount was paid as
  damages on account of breach of contract. It is not a
  penalty for violation of any statutory provisions. Hon'ble
  Kerala HC in the case of CIT Vs. Grand Cashew
  Corporation, 182 ITR 216 held that the liability to pay
  damages on account of breach of contract is an
  allowable deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Similar view
  has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT
  Vs Shantilal P. Ltd. 144 ITR 57, wherein it was held that
  any amount incurred by the assessee on account of
  non-fulfillment of business contract for reasons beyond
  his control is incidental to the business and is an
  allowable deduction.


11.1 Since the issue was covered by the order of the ITAT in

assessee's own case in A.Y. 2008-09 and the facts being

same, for same reasoning CIT(A) deleted the addition of

`14,86,000/-. Nothing contrary has been brought to our

notice by the Revenue. Therefore we are not inclined to

interfere with the decision of the CIT(A), who has deleted the
                               17
                                         ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                              Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

disallowance of `14,86,000/- made on account of penalty

payment for delayed execution of contract. The same is

upheld.

12. Next issue is with regard to the deletion of addition of

Rs.10,00,000/- which was made by the Assessing Officer u/s

40A(3) of the Act, on account labour charges and transport

charges.   We have decided this issue for AY 2009-10, in

paragraph No.6 of this order.         Facts being similar, so

following same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in

the findings of CIT(A) in this year as well wherein CIT(A) has

granted the similar relief on same line. We uphold the order

of CIT(A) on this issue in this year as well.


13. Next issue is with regard to disallowance under section

40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of transport charges of

`23,84,864/-. Vide para 11 of his order the Assessing Officer

has disallowed `23,86,864/- by invoking provisions of section

40(a)(ia) by observing that in many cases although PAN is not

mentioned, TDS was not deducted.
                             18
                                      ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                           Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

13.1 The matter was carried before the first Appellate

Authority. Various contentions were raised as detailed in

para 9.2 of CIT(A)'s order and having considered the same

CIT(A) has deleted the addition in question. Same has been

opposed before us, inter alia, submitting that the CIT(A) was

erred in deleting the addition of `23,86,864/-, which was

made by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by

treating that TDS was deducted on transport charges. On the

other hand, the learned A.R. for the assessee supported the

order of the CIT(A).

13.2 After going through the rival submissions and material

on record we find that CIT(A), after analyzing the details

submitted by the assessee, observed that the parties

mentioned by Assessing Officer in his order and the actual

parties are totally different for which he relied on the chart

given on pages 15 to 17 of his order. In this background the

CIT(A) observed that the amount disallowance by Assessing

Officer was without any basis and without making any

enquiries at his level. Since all details regarding transport

charges, specifying PAN, rate of deduction of TDS, date of
                                19
                                         ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                              Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

deposit in Govt. account, etc. were already before the

Assessing Officer and that too twice - once vide letter dated

10th September, 2012 and the second vide letter dated 18th

February, 2013 - during assessment proceedings, which was

also conveyed to CIT(A). In this background the CIT(A)

observed that Assessing Officer has not applied his mind in

dealing with the issue and even the amount and the names of

concerned parties did not tally. There was also contradiction

in the name of parties. On a comparative analysis of facts, in

this background, CIT(A) observed that there seems to be

wrong identification of figures and parties. In view of this the

CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the disallowance

was made without any basis hence the same was directed to

be deleted. This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) need no

interference from our side. We uphold the same.

14. Next issue is with regard to addition of `8,62,069/- in

respect   of   agricultural   income.   Vide   para    12    of   the

assessment order Assessing Officer has treated exempt

agricultural income as income from other sources on the

ground that source of income has not been explained, which
                               20
                                          ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                               Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

was deleted by the CIT(A). Same has been opposed before us

on behalf of the Revenue , inter alia, submitted that CIT(A)

erred in deleting addition of `8,62,069/- which was made for

non-furnishing the details relating to agricultural income. On

the other hand, the learned A.R. for the assessee supported

the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has been

declaring agricultural income since last many years and

same has been continuously accepted by Department and

same has been erroneously treated by the Assessing Officer

as income from other sources without any reason for the

same. Since there was no change in assessee's 7/12 Uttara

(official record of Agricultural land) in the name of the

assessee, indicating that assessee owns an agricultural land

at Jalore. Further, assessee also submitted details of the

sales made by the assessee during the year.

    Sr.        Name of the           Details of    Amout (Rs.)
    No.         Customer                the
                                     Product
     1.    Nupur Enterprise         Mung             339,300
                                    Bajari           114,000
     2.    Molota Enterprise        Mung             364,000
     3.    Nikita Enterprise        Bajari           90,000
                                    Total            907,300
                              21
                                       ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                            Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

14.1 Assessee also claimed that he incurred cash expenses to

the tune of `45,231/- as reflected in assessee's capital

account to earn the aforesaid agricultural income. In this

background the stand of the assessee has been that

agricultural income amounting to `8,62,069/- as declared by

him is exempt from taxation and hence requested to uphold

the order of the CIT(A).

14.2 After going through the rival submissions and material

on record we find that the income the income assessed under

the head `income from other sources' has rightly been deleted

by CIT(A) because similar income has been consistently

accepted by Assessing Officer in past and there is no change

in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even the

agricultural holding of the assessee has not been disputed.

Under the facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer was

not justified in deviation from the earlier stand of Revenue in

this regard without bringing any changed circumstances for

this addition. Accordingly, in the aforecited facts and

circumstances, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of
                              22
                                       ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                            Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

`8,62,069/-. This reasoned finding of the CIT(A) need no

interference. We uphold the same.


15. Next issue is with regard to the disallowance of the

aggregate of the purchases amounting to `2,16,32,610/- as

unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act.           The

assessee had made various purchases to the tune of

`2,16,32,610/- during the relevant accounting period.             In

this regard, the Assessing Officer on the basis of materials

provided by the Sales-tax Department disbelieved the said

purchases to the extent of `2,16,32,610/-.        The Assessing

Officer Issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the parties

appeared in the report sent by the Sales Tax Department. It

was found by him that the notices in most of the cases were

returned unserved with a remark 'left' or `not known'.          The

Assessing Officer thereafter asked the assessee to explain as

to why the alleged purchases from the parties reported by the

Sales-tax Department should not be treated as unexplained

expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and the resultant amount be

disallowed and added to the assessee's total Income. In this
                                23
                                        ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                             Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

regard, the assessee has given various explanation, but after

rejecting the same, the Assessing Officer disallowed the total

amount of `2,47,01,530/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has

disallowed 13.97% of purchases made by the assessee during

the year under consideration.

15.1     Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority

wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of the

assessee. The CIT(A) having considered the submissions of

the assessee granted relief to the assessee and the same has

been opposed before us on behalf of the Revenue inter alia

submitting that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

of Rs.2,16,32,610/- made by the Assessing Officer by

invoking provisions of section 69C of the Income-tax Act;

accordingly, the Departmental Representative submitted that

the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of Assessing

Officer be restored.     On the other hand, the Authorized

Representative supported the order of the CIT(A) on this

issue.

15.2 After going through the rival submissions and perusing

the material available on record, we find that the assessee
                               24
                                       ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                            Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

executes   the   contract    work   awarded      by     Municipal

Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter called "MCGM").

The terms and conditions of the contract awarded by MCGM

towards execution of the work done by any contractor.              It

was pointed out that found that execution of the contract,

the quality and the quantity of the material supplied was

directly under the supervision of the representative engineer

of the MCGM.     In the beginning, the assessee had to furnish

samples of the material to be supplied and the materials were

later on supplied on        approval of samples. This was on

account of the clause 59 of General Conditions of Contract

for Civil Works issued by the MCGM which is applicable to all

the contracts awarded by the MCGM. These details were

available on the website of the Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai, and therefore it is in public domain- the

relevant extracts of same are reproduced below:

    59(a) Material to be provided by the Contractor:
    The Contractor shall, at this own expense, provide all
    materials     required for the works other than those
    which are to be supplied by the Municipal Corporation.
                         25
                                  ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                       Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

All materials to be provided by the Contractor
shall   be     in conformity with the specifications laid
down in the contract and the Contractor shall, furnish
proof to the satisfaction     of the Engineer that the
material so comply. Contractor shall produce proof viz,
challans, bills, vouchers, etc so as to ensure that the
material was brought on site and quantities used as
per the norms, specifications, etc.


The Contractor shall, at his own expense and without
delay, supply to the Engineer samples of materials
proposed to be used in the Works. The Engineer shall
within seven days of supply of samples or within such
further period as he may require and intimated to the
contractor in writing, inform the contractor whether
the samples are approved by him or not. If the samples
are not approved the contractor shall forthwith arrange
to supply to the Engineer for approval fresh samples
complying with the specifications laid down in the
contract.


The Engineer shall have full powers to require removal
of any or all of the materials brought to site by the
Contractor which is not in accordance with the contract
specifications or which do not conform in character or
quality to the samples approved by him. In case of
default on the part of the Contractor in removing the
rejected materials, the Engineer shall be at liberty to
have them removed by other means. The Engineer shall
have full powers to procure other proper materials to be
substituted for rejected materials and In the event of the
Contractor refusing to comply, he may cause the same
to be supplied by other means.      All costs, which may
attend upon such removal and / or substitution, shall
be borne by the Contractor."
                                26
                                            ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                 Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

15.3 In the present case, the total supply of material is stated

to have been obtained from various parties and the Assessing

Officer   has    held   an   expense   of    Rs.2,16,32,610/-          as

unexplained expenditure/non-genuine expenditure. In the

Impugned contract the cost of material is quite high and if

the rejection of purchases from such parties, reflected In the

website www.mahavat.gov.in is rejected to be non-genuine

then purchases of the material made for the execution of the

contract from these parties, would lead to the preposterous

conclusion of having executed contract involving materials

without there being any       corresponding genuine purchase

and receipt of material. If such disallowances are take in to

consideration, the Gross Profit Ratio as well as Net Profit

Ratio will shoot up in a very high and abnormal ratio and for

which     onus was cast on the Assessing Officer to                bring

on   record     any such comparable figures/data which could

show that in the Government Civil Contracts there could be a

possibility of such abnormal Gross profit or Net Profit.
                             27
                                      ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                           Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

15.4 The assessee has been engaged in such activity for the

last several years. The assessment of immediate preceding

A.Y. have been completed under 143(3) and no such

additions were made. The books of accounts of the assessee

are audited and the returns filed in each of these years were

supported by tax audit report in form 3CB & 3CD. From the

Assessment Order, it is also seen that the Assessing Officer

has not rejected the Tax Audit Report in case of the assessee.

Since the assessee has done job work exclusively for

Government Departments, its receipts are 100% verifiable.

As per the terms of contracts by the Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai (MCGM), which is in public domain and

available on the website of Municipal Corporation of Greater

Mumbai, the jobs executed by the contractor/assessee also

require quantity and quality specification of the material to

be supplied/consumed and the contract receipts in the

hands of the assessee invariably precede such verification

and certification by the departmental authorities. The only

ground for rejecting the purchase was mention of the names

of purchase parties on the website of sales tax department
                              28
                                      ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                           Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

under the category of suspicious dealers. The Assessing

Officer has not found any infirmity with respect to receipt of

payment for execution of contracts for which appellant has

obtained, supplied and consumed materials under the

quantity and quality supervision of the representative

engineer.   The Assessing Officer has also not been able to

bring on record the evidences that the amount of the

payment for purchases which were made by the assessee to

the respective parties via   banking channels, were received

back by the appellant and ultimately there was no purchase

of any material.   It was not possible because without supply

of material, the contract awarded by MCGM cannot be

fulfilled by the assessee and consequently, the MCGM would

not make any payment' for the same.          In fact the entire

process is inter connected and the statement of suppliers of

raw    materials    could not be     taken        and         read

independently rather it has to be examined In totality.          In

view of the above, it was apparent that the mere appearance

of the name of the parties on the website of sales tax

department cannot justify the conclusion that the purchases
                                  29
                                             ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                  Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

made by the assessee were not genuine. Thus, the contracts

executed by various contractors were subjected to check as

regards   their     specification,   workmanship/         quality     and

quantity of material utilized by the Audit/Vigilance team of

the MCGM. The Assessing Officer has not brought out any

material on record to suggest that there were any defect or

deficiency in the quantity and quality of material supplied

and the workmanship of the job performed.


15.5 The assessee has made claim for purchases for which

payments     have     been    made     by   cross-cheque.          Where

payments are made by account payee cheques nobody can

deny the existence of the parties. The Assessing Officer has

not brought any material on record to suggest that the

payments made to purchase parties were received back in

cash by the assessee and no further payments were made by

the assessee towards purchase of any material so as to fulfill

the conditions of contract imposed by the MCGM which has

made payments towards contract awarded to the assessee.

Once   the   assessee        establishes    consumption       of    items
                              30
                                       ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                            Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

purchased as well nothing more remains to be proved by the

assessee. The CIT(A) himself has logged onto the           website

www.mahavat.gov.in to know the allegation of Assessing

Officer regarding the suppliers.   He found that the website

merely mentions list of suspicious dealers who has issued

false bills without delivery of goods. It neither gives modus

operandi of dealers nor makes any claim regarding any

corroborating evidences.     He further observed that the

addition made by the Assessing Officer could not be accepted

at this stage in view of following judicial pronouncements:-

     (i) In the case of CIT vs. M.K. Brothers, reported in 163
     ITR 249 the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held as under:-

          It was clear from the Tribunal's order that whether
          the said transactions were bogus or not was a
          question of fact. The assessee was given credit
          facilities for a short duration and the payments
          were given by cheques. When that was so, it could
          not be said that the entries for the purchases of
          the goods made, in the books of the account were
          bogus entries. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by
          the Tribunal was not against the weight of
          evidence. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in
          deleting the addition to the income of the assessee.


     In this case, during the assessment proceedings it came

to the notice of the Assessing Officer that in the relevant
                             31
                                     ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                          Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

assessment year the assessee had made certain purchases

from some parties, who were not available to cross-examine

for the genuineness of the above purchases. It was found by

the Assessing Officer that though the purchases were

claimed to have been made on credit basis, the payments

were shown to have been made after substantial lapse of time

after the date of purchase. The Assessing Officer held that

the transactions relating to those purchases were bogus and,

therefore, treated the amount allegedly paid for those

purchases as income of the assessee. On second appeal, the

Tribunal found that there was no evidence anywhere that

those concerns gave bogus vouchers to the assessee and

further there was nothing to indicate that any part of the

fund given by the assessee to those parties came back to the

assessee in any form. He, thus, held that the evidence was

not adequate to conclude that the purchases made were

bogus and, therefore, deleted the aforesaid addition to the

income of the assessee.    Similar view has been taken by

ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the of ITO v Permanand, reported in

107 TTJ 395, wherein in it was held as under:-
                            32
                                     ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                          Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

   "In the instant case, the addition rested mainly only on
   the observation of the Sales-tax Department, The
   assessee was never associated with the enquiries made
   by the Sales-tax Department to that extent. The
   satisfaction of the Assessing Officer itself is of prime
   Importance while making assessment of an income and
   these duties cannot be performed by substituting
   satisfaction of someone else the assessee did pay for the
   purchases he made from the above two parties through
   cheque as was evident from the record. The statements or
   even the affidavits of the sellers could not be utilized
   against the assesses, unless an opportunity was given to
   him to confront the said statement by way of cross-
   examination, etc. Admittedly, no such opportunity was
   given to the assessee to confront the above sellers in the
   instant case. Further, the assessee had also discharged
   the primary onus cast on him by section 69 by showing
   the purchases, their entries in the books of account,
   payments by way of account payee cheque and producing
   the vouchers of sales of the goods. The Assessing officer
   had miserably failed to bring on record any clinching
   evidence to prove that these alleged purchases were
   bogus and not genuine. Further, the Assessing Officer
   did not make requisite investigation against the two
   sellers. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly
   held that the addition      made   by    the    Assessing
   Officer    merely    on   the  basis   of observations of
   sales-tax department, without conducting independent
   enquiries was not justified. Since the purchase in
   question had been held as genuine purchase, addition of
   Rs, 55,632/- could not be made to the income of the
   assessee. Hence, the revenue's appeal was liable to be
   dismissed"

   Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of

Diagnostics v CIT reported at 334 ITR 111 has held as

under:-
                            33
                                     ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                          Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

   "However, as regards the payments made to M/s. Selvas
   Photographic are concerned amounting to Rs.3,12,302/-,
   we find that those have been made by account payee
   cheques and those have been encashed through the
   bankers of M/s. Selvas Photographic. It appears that
   according to the appellant, at the time of assessment, the
   appellant had no business transaction with M/s, Selvas
   Photographic and consequently, the said party did not
   co-operate with the Assessing Officer. However,the
   transaction having taken place through account payee
   cheques, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr.
   Agarwal, the learned advocate appearing for the Revenue
   that the transaction was a non-existent one. If an
   assessee took care to purchase materials for his business
   by way of account payee cheques from a third party and
   subsequently three years after the purchase, the said
   third party does not appear before the Assessing Officer
   pursuant to the notice or even has stopped the business,
   the claim of the assessee on that account cannot be
   discarded as non-existent. In the case before us, the
   Revenue has not put forward any other ground, such as,
   it was not a genuine transaction for other reasons but
   has simply rejected the claim on the ground as If there
   was no such transaction.
   10. The transaction having taken place through
   payment by account payee cheques, such plea is
   not tenable and in such circumstances, the Tribunal
   below erred In law in reversing the finding arrived at by
   the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepting the
   said transaction as a genuine transaction."





  Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case as well as various judicial

pronouncements as referred to above, in our opinion, the

CIT(A) was rightly deleted the addition of Rs.2,16,32,610/-
                                 34
                                            ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                 Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act. Therefore,

this reasoned finding of the CIT(A) needs no interference from

our side. We uphold the same.

16. Next     issue   is   with   regard     to    the    addition      of

Rs.4,48,89,991/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s

69C on account of sub-contract charges.

16.1    The brief facts the case are that the addition to the

tune of Rs.4,48,89,991/- was made u/s 69C of the Act in

respect of four parties under the head sub-contractors. The

Assessing Officer observed that notices issued u/s 133(6) to

the four parties were returned unserved by Postal Authorities.

The assessee had furnished to concerned Assessing Officer

the addresses made available by the said parties. The

Assessing Officer asked the assessee to give explanation as to

why    the   sub-contract   work      for   the   said    amount       of

Rs.4,48,89,991/- should not be held as bugs.


16.2 The matter was carried before the First Appellate

Authority wherein various contentions were raised on behalf

of the assessee and having considered the same, the CIT(A)
                             35
                                      ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                           Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

deleted the addition in question and the same has been

opposed before us by Revenue, inter alia, submitting that the

CIT(A) has erred in deletion the addition of Rs.4,48,89,991/-

made by Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act. The

Departmental Representative pleaded that the order of the

CIT(A) be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored.

On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the

assessee supported the order of the CIT(A).

16.3 After going through the rival submissions and material

on record, we find that the assessment of the assessee in the

immediately preceding assessment year i.e., 2000-10, was

completed u/s 143(3) but no such addition was made the

Assessing Officer despite thorough scrutiny of the case. The

assessee has completed all government jobs by purchasing

material, engaging sub-contractors etc., which is evident from

the fact that the assessee successfully received the payment

from Government towards such specific contract. In fact, the

Assessing Officer has given time of two days to produce the

confirmation, statement on oath as mentioned in assessment

order. The assessee explained that the assessee had given
                                       36
                                                 ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                      Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

sub-contract to these four parties and list was given to

Assessing Officer alongwith address and PAN. The assessee

explained the payments with reference to copy of account

with cheque payment details and TDS applicable wherever

necessary, which has been detailed in the order of the CIT(A)

at page No.46 as under:-

                             RATANSINGH & BROS                  ANNEXURE-B
                                 AY 2010-2011
               ASPER PARA 6.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
                   NAME OF THE PARTY : ALPESH MEHTA
  Sr. No.    Date of Payment        Cheque No.     Amount          Remark

     1          15.10.2009            98299        300000           Party's
                                                                   account
     2          16.10.2009            98459        450000
                                                                squared off as
     3          26.10.2009            99060        512844             on
                                                                 31.03.2010
     4          03.11.2009            99351       1134342
     5          06.11.2009            99379       1144193
                        Total Rs.                 3541379


            NAME OF THE PARTY : RANJEETSINGH S. DEORA (HUF)
  Sr.No       Date of Payment       Cheque No.     Amount          Remark
    1           28.10.2009            99210        1500000       Party's account
                                                                  squared off as
                                                                 on 31.03.2010

                        Total Rs.                  1500000

                NAME OF THE PARTY : GAUTAM TRADING CO.
  Sr.No.     Date of Payment        Cheque No.     Amount          Remark
    1          06.04.2010             6908        2045643        Party's account
                                                                squared off as on
                                                                   06.04.2010

                        Total Rs.                 2045643
                                        37
                                                 ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                      Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod
             NAME OF THE PARTY : ROSEMOUNT CONSTRUCITON


  Sr.         Date of Payment       Cheque No.     Amount          Remark
  No.
   1            07.01.2010             496        5000000           Party's
                                                                   account
   2            07.01.2010             497        6000000
                                                                squared off as
   3            08.01.2010             498        5000000             on
                                                                 31.03.2010
   4            09.01.2010             499        4000000
   5            19.01.2010             500        5000000
   6            21.01.2010             501        5000000
   7            23.02.2010             4232       6830000
                        Total Rs.                 36830000


                     Grand total Rs.              43917022


                             SUMMARY
               AMOUNT AS PER PARA 6.1                44,889,991
               LESS: TDS                                824,717
                                                     44,065,274
               Less: Security Deposit                   148,252
               TOTAL PAYMENT AS ABOVE                43,917,022

       Where identity of the person from whom goods had been

purchased and source of investment in such goods had been

explained by assessee and it was established that amounts

paid by assessee by cheque for those goods had been

received, and further, books maintained by the assessee had

not been rejected by Assessing officer and in fact addition

was based on entries made in those books, it could be said

that transaction was genuine. Here in the case on hand, the
                                  38
                                             ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                  Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

identity has been established, source of investment and bank

payments have been proved and the books of accounts have

not been rejected by the Assessing Officer. The unexplained

expenditure of Rs.2,16,32,610/- made by the Assessing

Officer by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act

has   been   deleted   by   us,    relying     on    various     judicial

pronouncements as discussed in paragraph 14 of this order.

For the sake of brevity, the same are not reproduced here

once again. The Assessing Officer had all the machinery

under the IT Act, 1961 to make investigation through the

Banks by calling for records and reaching out the parties who

were not co-operating with the assessee and bring the actual

facts on record. In view of above, the CIT(A) was justified in

deleting the addition of Rs.4,48,89,991/- because the

Assessing Officer has also not been able to bring on record

the evidences that the amount of the payment for purchases,

which were made by the assessee to the respective parties via

banking channels. There is nothing on record to suggest that

said payments were received back by the assessee in any

manner. This reasoned finding of the CIT(A) needs no
                               39
                                         ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                              Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

interference from our side whereby he has rightly deleted this

addition in question. We uphold the same.


17. Next issue is with regard to the deletion of addition of

Rs.30,68,920/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the

Act, on account of purchase expenses.

17.1 The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer

disallowed an aggregate amount of Rs.30,68,920 u/s 69C of

the Act on account unexplained expenditure as the assessee

allegedly did not purchase any goods from three parties as

mentioned in page no.7 of assessment order. The Assessing

Officer himself observed that the name of those three parties

were not appearing in the list of bogus parties sent by the

Sales Tax Department.         However, the Assessing Officer

disallowed the amount in question by observing that the

three parties were bogus for the reason that the notices u/s

133(6) were returned unserved.          The matter was carried

before   the   First   Appellate    Authority   wherein      various

contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee and having

considered the same, the CIT(A) has granted relief to the
                                 40
                                              ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                                   Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

assessee and the same has been opposed before us by the

Revenue, inter alia, submitting that the order of the CIT(A) be

set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored.


17.2 After going through the rival contentions and material

available on record, we find that The Assessing Officer has

mainly relied upon an article published in Times Of India

which refers to certain business enterprises. It was further

seen that the article itself was with reference to certain works

entrusted to them. The article has been published on 06-02-

2013 and which falls in FY 2012-13 i.e. AY 2013-14. This

cannot be basis for making any addition or disallowance by

the Assessing Officer in AY 2010-11. The authenticity of

source   of    such    article   has    not     been      independency

investigated   by     the   Assessing   Officer      in   the    case    of

proprietorships concern of            the assessee namely M/s.

Ratansingh & Bros. No other reason has been brought on

record by the Assessing Officer to substantiate adverse

conclusion against the assessee. The Assessing Officer has

not taken any personal initiative except issuing notices u/s
                               41
                                        ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                             Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

 133(6) of the Act to ascertain the genuineness of the

 purchases in question. The CIT(A) found from the records

 produced before him by the assessee that the purchases

 made could not be said to be not genuine. If the Assessing

 Officer has not made any effort to rebut the assessee's claim

 about the genuineness of the purchases, the assessee cannot

 be made for such lapse.       Therefore, in our opinion, the

 CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.30,68,920/-

 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act.                We

 uphold the same.

 18. This appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed.


 19. In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue, i.e. for

 AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11, are dismissed.


  Order pronounced in the open court on 13th January, 2016.
               13.01.2016    

         Sd/-                                 Sd/-
  (RAJESH KUMAR)                    (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV)
  /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                   /JUDICIAL MEMBER
   Mumbai,  Dated 13th January, 2016
                             42
                                       ITA No. 3717&5298/Mum/2013
                                            Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod

         /Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1.    / The Appellant
2.    / The Respondent
3.     () / The CIT(A)
4.     / The CIT
5.    ,   ,  / DR, "D" Bench ITAT, Mumbai
6.     / Guard file.

                                             / By Order
            //True Copy//

                                /Asstt. Registrar)
                               ,  /ITAT, Mumbai

n.p.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Web Application Development Web based Software Solution Web Application Deployment Web Application Solutions Web Application Software Development Web Application Deployment Web Application Programming Web Application Design and Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions