MUNAWWAR SHAKUR KHAN,THANE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

PER RATNA DASGPUTA, AM

The captioned appeal by the assessee arises from order dated 14/01/2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income tax Act,1961 - hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for A.Y. 2021-22, on the following grounds:-

Munawwar Shakur Khan 2 ITA No. 3262/MUM/2026

i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessment order dated 20th December, 2022 assessing total income at Rs. 10,03,10,490/-for AY 2021-22. ii. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order bearing DIN & No: ITBA/ALP/S/250/2025- 26/1084784484(1) under section 250 for AY 2021-2022 on 14th January 2026. iii. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,89,50,069/- made on account of alleged bogus purchases as per the assessment order dated 20th December, 2022 for AY 2021-22. iv. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.6,44,760 made on account of alleged bogus sales as per the assessment order dated 20th December, 2022 for AY 2021-22. v. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.13,500/- under chapter VI-A made as per the assessment order dated 20th December, 2022 for AY 2021-22. vi. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions made as per the Assessment Order dated 20th December, 2022 for the A.Y. 2021-22 without giving sufficient & proper opportunity of being heard. vii. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions made as per the Assessment Order dated 20th December, 2022 for the A.Υ. 2021-22 without fully & properly appreciating facts of the case & the submission of the Appellant.

Munawwar Shakur Khan 3 ITA No. 3262/MUM/2026

viii. The appellant craves leave to add alter revise amend or delete any or all of the Grounds of the appeal at any time. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, carrying on a wholesale business of scrap goods in the trade name of M/s. Adarsh Scrap Traders, filed his return of income for AY 2021-2022 on 24/02/2022 declaring total income of Rs. 7,02,160/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS with the reason that, as per information, the assessee had, during the year under consideration, made substantial purchases from suppliers who were either non-filers or had filed non-business ITRs or had reflected substantial lower turnover in their ITR. In the course of assessment proceedings, The assessee was asked to furnish requisite details/evidences to establish the genuineness of purchases made from such parties. The assessee submitted that he had sent a copy of purchase ledger account to the parties concerned for ledger confirmation and their ITRs and further submitted that invoices of purchases made during financial year 2020- 2021 had been seized by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax for which he had made a request to procure. Effectively, however, the assessee could submit only copy of his bank statement for the period 01/4/2020 to 31/03/2021. Since the assessee failed to furnish requisite evidence to establish the genuineness of the purchases made by him, independent inquiries were also made with such parties by the Ld. AO. But out of the seven parties with whom

Munawwar Shakur Khan 4 ITA No. 3262/MUM/2026

inquiries were made, only M/s. DRP Enterprises submitted necessary evidence confirming sale worth Rs. 11,44,154/- to the assessee. One Shri Ashok Kumar, from whom the assessee had claimed to make purchases of Rs. 1,03,83,976/-, submitted in his reply that he was a resident of rural area earning daily wages from labor work and that he did not know the assessee and did not have any transaction from him. The other four purchasers, to whom notices under section 133 (6) had been issued, did not file any response. In view of this, the Ld. AO held purchases of Rs. 9,89,50,069/-, attributable to Shri Ashok Kumar and the non- responsive parties, to be bogus purchases and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act and also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE in respect of this addition. 2.1 The assessee had also made sales to certain parties who had not filed their ITRs for the AY 2021-2022. Here also, when asked to furnish details/evidences to establish the genuineness of such sales, the assessee could only furnish copy of his bank statement for the period 01/04/2020 to 31/03/2021. The Ld. AO thereupon issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to Nilkanth Arjun Giran to whom sales of Rs. 6,44,760/- had allegedly been made, but there was no response from this party. In the circumstances, the Ld. AO treated Rs. 6,44,760/- as bogus sales of the assessee and added

Munawwar Shakur Khan 5 ITA No. 3262/MUM/2026

back the same to the assessee's total income as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act.

2.2 In respect of deduction claimed under Chapter VIA, the assessee submitted copy of insurance premium paid of Rs 1,00,000/-, but failed to substantiate his claim of deduction for tuition fee of Rs. 13,500/-. This amount was, therefore, disallowed by the Ld. AO.

2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee carried this matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but made no compliance at all during the course of appellate proceedings. Operational part of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:- “It is clear from the above facts that the appellant could not make any submission inspite of availing sufficient time and opportunities during this appellate proceeding. From the fact of appellant’s non-response to various notices, it is clear that apparently appellant has no specific submissions to file to pursue the pending appeal. As appellant failed to avail the opportunities offered on various occasions from time to time, it is understood that the appellant is not keen to pursue the appeal as per law and, accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution by the appellant”.

Munawwar Shakur Khan 6 ITA No. 3262/MUM/2026

assessee was illiterate and the inability to submit necessary documents before the Ld. CIT(A) stemmed in large part due to his unawareness and his huge communication gap with his Chartered Accountant. More important, the vital documents in respect of purchases could not be produced because the same had been seized by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The Ld. AR requested that the matter be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) so as to give the assessee one more chance to properly present his case. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Munawwar Shakur Khan 7 ITA No. 3262/MUM/2026

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/09/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (RATNA DASGPUTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 16/09/2026 Z.U., P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai