ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. SHRI ASHPAQUE MDSHAFI MOTIWALA, SOLAPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH “DB”, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2021-22 ACIT, Central Circle, Vs. Shri Ashpaque Mdshafi Belagavi. Motiwala, 41, Sidhwshwar Peth, Solapur- 413001. PAN : AKSPM8253B Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Sharma (Virtual) Assessee by : Shri Pramod Vaidhya (Virtual) Date of hearing : 09.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 04.09.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 25.04.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2021-22 respectively. 2. Since the facts are identical and both the appeals were heard together, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

2 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 3. First, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No.183/PAN/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 for adjudication as the lead case. ITA No.183/PAN/2025, A.Y. 2018-19 : 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in Law in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has not produced the copies of the weighmnent slips one of the documents evidencing the genuineness of the purchases even after providing multiple opportunities. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in Law in allowing the appeal of the assessee when the assessee had failed to produce the stock register, inward register and outward register evidencing the entries for individual purchases even though it was evident from the invoices/e-way bills that the goods have been shipped to godown of the assessee. This contradicts the statements of Shri Ashpaque Md. Shafi Motiwala wherein he states the reason for not availability of weighment slip as being the direct supply from the supplier to the buyer's premises.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the activity of wholesale and retail trading of Iron and Steel and has furnished his return of income on 31.10.2018 by declaring income of Rs.1,25,39,820/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act. A search u/s 132 of the IT Act was carried out in the case of M/s. D. Y. Uppar and Sons, Dhareppa Yankappa Uppar on 07.10.2021 wherein the assessee was also covered. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on

3 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 15.03.2022. In response to which, the assessee filed return of income on 17.06.2022 disclosing the same income which was declared in the original return of income. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee and the assessee was required to produce the details of the purchases made by him along- with documentary evidences like party-wise details of all the purchase, the sales ledger along with the copies of bills invoices, e- way bills, computerised weighment slips, bank account statement, details of payment made to the transporters in cash/RTGS, along with the copies of transport bills vouchers, Inward and Outward register for the stock maintained at his godown, etc in respect of India Steel Mart, Modern Steel. However, it was found by the Assessing Officer that in most of the cases, weighment slips were not available. In the sworn statement Shri Ashpaque Md. Shafi Motiwala stated that he is not maintaining inward and outward register for the stock maintained at his godown and they are maintaining only invoices for all purchases and sales in their Tally Software. The details were also called for from the suppliers of the assessee but these parties also could not provide the weighment slips despite several reminders issued to them. From the statements

4 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 recorded of the suppliers of the assessee, it is found that the transactions which are accompanied by computerised weighment slips, bill invoices and e-way bills are treated as genuine transactions and where computerised weighment slips are missing are treated as non-genuine transactions. Weighment slip is a document which is having the following details on it: (a) Serial No. (b) Date & Time (c) Vehicle number (d) Customer name (e) Vendor Name (f) Date and time of In and Out of material (g) Details of material transported (h) Gross weight, tare weight and the net weight of the material being transported. As the weighment slip is mandatory for every sale, the goods received at or dispatched from the godown is supported by a weighment slip. On the basis of the weighment slip, the invoice and e-way bills are generated and handed over to the transporter to be delivered at the buyers address. Thus, for any genuine transaction, which involves actual movement of goods, the weighment slip is a must for any trader in this line of business. The assessee has made total purchases of Rs.1,07,65,32,143/- & according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish weighment slips with regard to purchases of Rs.11,67,58,437/-. The list of the 13 persons from whom above

5 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 purchases were made was also made part of the assessment order. Hence, it was concluded by the Assessing Officer that without weighment slips, the transaction or the movement of goods can’t be treated as genuine. Hence, the purchases from those parties where weighment slips are not provided are to be treated as bogus purchases, where there is no actual movement of goods. According to the Assessing Officer, for the financial year 2017-18, such bogus purchases which were not supported by weighment slips amounted to Rs.11,67,58,437/-. Accordingly, vide order dated 30-03-2023 the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.12,93,11,644/- as against the income of Rs.1,25,39,820/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.11,67,58,437/- u/s 69C of the IT Act being treated as bogus purchases in the absence of weighment slips & addition of Rs.13,387/- being disallowance of depreciation. 6. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :-

6 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 “5.0 I have considered the above submissions and also gone through the various details furnished by the appellant. The appellant has supported genuineness of his purchases with documentary evidences as required under GST Laws.Only one piece of document which is not filed is weighment slip. The appellant has supported the purchases with following documentation  Purchase invoices containing details of seller, location of delivery of goods, details of vehicle transporting goods of the appellant,  transportation bills  e-way bills  payments are made through banking channels. 5.1 On the other hand the Ld. AO has not provided any adverse finding on documentation filed by the appellant. The Ld. AO in order to accept genuineness of purchase has emphasized on weighment slip as an evidence of movement of goods but he has ignored other documentary evidence filed by the appellant. E-way bill and transport bills demonstrates movement of goods. Moreover, on the invoice also the details of transporter are mentioned which matches with e-way bill and transporter bills. Such documents are sufficient to show movement of goods. 5.2 Further, it is also pertinent to note that Ld. AO has not questioned the corresponding sales by the appellant. If the purchases are found to be bogus, the sale offered by the appellant ought to have been reversed as well, which is not done by the Ld. AO. 5.3 Having regard to above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has discharged his primary onus to file requisite documents to substantiate genuineness of purchases made. On the contrary the Ld. AO has not brought anything on record to showcase that the payments made by appellant towards purchases are returned back by the supplier by way of round tripping so that the underlined purchases are to be treated as bogus. The Ld. AO has also not brought any finding that alleged parties does not exist or they are indulged into bogus trading to provide accommodation entries. 5.4 The appellant has discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, e-way bills etc. In view of the above discussion in totality, the purchases made by the appellant from the above parties are found to be acceptable and the consequent disallowance resulting in addition to income made for Rs.11,67,58,437,

7 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the appellant gets a relief of Rs.11,67,58,437. 6.0 In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 7. It is the above order against which the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper books and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the case of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has not produced weighment slip along with other supporting documents even the assessee admitted in his statement that Inward and Outward Register for stock at Godown is not maintained, therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee is involved in bogus billing without actual movement of goods. In this regard, para 7.5 to 7.5.5 are relevant which reads as under “7.5 The submissions of the assessee were examined in detail and found untenable for the following reasons. 7.5.1 As has been discussed in details in para 6.1 above, the trade practices requires the weighment of the material sold and this weighment slip is the basis on which the invoice is drawn by the seller. The seller handover the copy of the weighment slip, invoice and delivery challan alongwith the material the transporter. Therefore, the assessee’s contention that the details such as invoice no., name of the party, name of the transporter etc. is satisfactory evidence to prove that the goods traded are genuine is not correct. The very absence of the weighment slip put a question mark on the veracity of the article traded.

8 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 7.5.2 The assessee contends that he has followed procedure in respect of sale of goods as laid down under the GST Act/ Rules is also not true. The assessee has failed to furnish the copies of the weighment slips, inward and outward register, stock register, despite the numerous opportunities provided to him. The assessee merely states in the submission that all the weighment slips except for one party namely Mahalaxmi Trading Corporation is submitted which is untrue. 7.5.3 In the statements recorded during the course of post search proceedings, it was admitted by the assessee that goods are directly delivered from the supplier to the buyer and it is for this reason that no weighment slips are available with the assessee. This contradicts the statements of the assessee wherein he states the reason for not availability of weighment slip as being the direct supply from the supplier to the buyer’s premises. If the contention of the assessee is true then the weighment slip of the suppliers should have matched with the sales. 7.5.4 The assessee’s contention that all the purchases are supported by bank transfers, purchase invoices and transport receipt and all the sales are supported by sales invoices and transport receipt. He contends that the purchase and sales are supported by quantitative details which can be verified from the books of account, weighment slip wherever available were produced for verification and Input credit under GST is allowed by the department. The assessee tries to prove the genuineness of the purchase by resorting to the theoretical approach for explaining the transaction. In the course of any trading or manufacturing business there is utmost importance of weighment slip as the same is an evidence of quantity of goods transported. More so, in the business of trading i.e. steel, in which the assessee is engaged, the entire invoice cost is based on the quantity. Therefore, it is only after the weight of the goods/ material to be transported is ascertained, the invoice/ bill/ Eway bills are prepared by the seller and actual transportation of material takes place. That is to say for every transaction or every movement of goods, the first step is weighing of the material only. On receipt of the purchases at your level, in the godown also, for every incoming of goods, computerised weighment slip is generated. The same procedure is again carried out by purchaser for the corresponding sale from his end. Without corresponding weighment slip, no goods will be taken in or out of the godown. Though, without weighment slip, one can prepare any invoice and e-way bill and there won’t be any supporting document to prove that there is any actual movement of the goods. For any genuine transaction, which involves actual movement of goods, computerised weighment slip is a must for any trader in this line of business.

9 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 7.5.5. The copy of the stock register and inward register evidencing the entries for individual purchases are not provided even though it is evident from the invoice that the goods have been shipped to godown of the assessee. Infact the assessee has claimed that the stock register and inward register are not maintained and during the course of proceedings has now claimed that the same is available as per the books of account. The very statement that no inward register is maintained raises a question on the claim of the credibility of the individual purchases and no verification can be made about the authenticity of the material which is stated to be delivered at the godown or sent directly.” 9. On the other hands, Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the assessee that even if weighment slips are not available the purchase transaction can be verified with the help of • Purchase invoices containing details of seller, location of delivery of goods, details of vehicle transporting goods of the appellant, • transportation bills • e-way bills • payments are made through banking channels And accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition which was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of non-availability of weighment slips. 10. In this regard, it is the limited argument of the Revenue that weighment slip is an important document in the absence of which genuineness of purchase and movement of goods cannot be proved conclusively. It is also the argument of the Revenue that the assessee is not maintaining the stock register, inward register and

10 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 outward register at the gowon reflecting the entries for individual purchases even though it was evident from the invoices/ e-way bills that the goods have been shipped to Godown of the assessee and it also contradicts the statement of the assessee that the reason for non-availability of weighment slip as being the direct supply from the supplier to the buyer’s premises. 11. In this regard, we find that the assessee has produced various documents before us however not a single weighment slip was produced before the bench with regard to the impugned purchases made from the 13 persons pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Even Ld. CIT(A) has not referred anywhere in his order that the assessee produced weighment slips before him relating to impugned bogus purchases from 13 persons pointed out by the Assessing Officer. We further find that weighment slip in the transportation process of goods is a most important document, in the absence of which the authenticity of weight & movement of goods cannot be proved. Even Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Trading Company vs. Union of India [2026] 185 taxmann.com 776 (SC) [19-11-2025] directed the petitioner to clarify the discrepancy in weighment of goods by observing as under :-

11 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025

“17. More importantly, the petitioner needs to explain the discrepancies as mentioned in the notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "the Act, 2017") more particularly three things:- (a) The gross weight of goods along with conveyance is found to be 36.31 MT in the weighment slip produced the river after interception. The tare weight of conveyance is mentioned to be 11.390 MT in the weighment slip as provided by the driver cum person charge of the conveyance at the time of Interception. Therefore, the net weight of the goods in the conveyance is found to be 24.920 MT (Gross weight minus tare weight), which is not matching with the quantity of goods mentioned in the invoice as well as E-way Bill tendered by the driver cum person in charge. Hence Excess goods weighing 420 kgs was found in the conveyance. (b) Time of issuance of E-Way Bill was before the time of weighment of goods in the invoice vide Slip No.29851 Dated 13.05.2025 (c) Weight mentioned in the Invoice is less than the weight mentioned in weighment. 18. Once proper explanation comes on record, we shall proceed thereafter to consider the matter further.” 12. Apart from above, in a recent judgement passed in the case of Shiv Trading vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that once the very basis to show that the movement of goods has taken place, was doubted, the petitioner, apparently, failed to prove actual physical movement of goods by observing as under :- “8. It is admitted fact between the parties that the goods have been shown to be purchased from M/s Krishna Trading Company, Mathura. In support thereof, tax invoice, e-way bill, weighment receipt before & after loading, bilty, etc. were filed and on the basis of the said

12 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 documents, ITC was availed by the petitioner. Thereafter, on scrutiny, neither M/s Krishna Trading Company was found to be in existent, nor the persons, who issued the bilty and weighment slip, was found in existent. Once the very basis to show that the movement of goods has taken place was doubted, the petitioner, apparently, failed to prove actual physical movement of goods. 9. The authorities have categorically recorded the fact that the petitioner failed to show actual movement of goods and therefore, the judgements cited by the petitioner, as referred to hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, are of no aid to the petitioner. The petitioner also could not distinguish the judgements of the Apex Court in Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P.) Ltd. (supra). 10. ------ 11. ----- 12. From the perusal of the record shows that the petitioner failed to discharge its onus to prove and establish beyond doubt the actual transaction, actual physical movement of goods as well as the genuineness of the transactions and as such, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner under section 74 of the GST Act. 13. In view of the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.” 13. Apart from above, in a judgement in the case of Zaveri Diamonds vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana, 20 taxmann.com 462 (Punj. & Har.) (against which SLP was also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court while confirming the order passed by ITAT (wherein the Tribunal confirmed the addition in the absence of weighment slips) referred the findings of the Tribunal in its order by observing as under :-

13 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 “29. Moreover we find that the entire transactions of purchase and sale of jewellery, as claimed by the assesasee have been carried out in a peculiar manner and abnormal circumstances, which to our mind, irrefutably leads to a conclusion that there is no business per se of the assesasee of purchase and sale of jewellery. It is firstly seen in this regard that assessee firm did not even have the necessary infrastructure to carry on the business of purchase and sale of diamond jewellery. One of the most essential infrastructure, as has also been admitted by the assessee, in the course of business of purchase and sales of jewellery, is Dharmkanta, on the basis of which, the jewellery is purchased and sold. It may be stated here that total weight of the jewellery purchased and sold by the assesasee is substantial as reflected in quantitative details on page 7 of the paper book and the total value of business carried out is in excess of Rs.16 crores. It is nowhere stated that assessee has any Dharamkanta which could have enabled it to carry on such business and that too of such huge volumes. The fact is that the assessee was not in ownership of any weighing scale to weigh the jewellery allegedly purchased or sold and even otherwise no particulars have been placed on record to show that such jewellery was allegedly purchased and sold by the assessee with a weighing scale of third party. In fact, the evidence furnished by the assessee in the shape of purchase bills and sales bills do not include the weighment slips, which as per the admission of the assessee is the fundamental requirement for any transaction of purchase/sale of jewellery. Infact during the course of the instant proceedings a specific question was put to the assessee by the bench, to which it was stated that so far as the transaction of purchase is concerned, the weighment slips have been handed over to the seller of the jewellery and as regard the transactions of sales, they had been handed over to the buyers of jewellery and no records have been maintained by the assessee in this regard. We are unable to accept such a fallacious statement made particularly in light of the fact that even the basic particulars of the person, from whom such weighment has been got done is not brought to record. Also, no expenses with regard to the weighment have been debited by the assessee in its books of account. This conclusion is also supported from the statement recorded of one of the sellers of the jewellery to the assessee. Infact, even in the course of hearing before us in the cases of the sellers of jewellery, weighment slips have been brought on record either before the lower authorities or even before us. Infact, the assessee's stand is manifested by the contradiction in the assessee's approach vis a vis that of the sellers of the jewellery to assessee. One of the seller stated that the weighing scale was available in the shop of the assessee whereas admittedly the assessee does not own any weighing scale and instead the assessee stated that weighment was done on a Dharmkanta of another party, who has not even been identified."

14 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 9. In view of the aforesaid findings, which have not been shown to be illegal or perverse, no substantial question of law as claimed by the assessee arises in this appeal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 14. Respectfully following the above judgements passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Trading Company vs. Union of India [2026] 185 taxmann.com 776 (SC)[19-11-2025] & also judgement passed in the case of Shiv Trading vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (supra) & Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P.) Ltd. which is relied on by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court & also judgement passed in the case of Zaveri Diamonds vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the weighment slip is a necessary document which proves the movement of goods from any place since only after weighment of goods the weight (of material transported) can be mentioned in the invoice and also in the e-way bill. 15. On the other hand, in all the case laws relied on by the assessee, relief was granted on the basis of purchase / sales invoices, e-way bills and check payments/ banking transaction. However, the case laws relied on by the assessee are not squarely applicable to the

15 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 facts of instant case in hand, since Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest case of State of Karnataka vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P.) Ltd. [2023] 148 taxmann.com 352 (SC) has observed in para 9.1 of its order :- “9.1---- In fact, if a dealer claims Input Tax Credit on purchases, such dealer/purchaser shall have to prove and establish the actual physical movement of goods, genuineness of transactions by furnishing the details referred above and mere production of tax invoices would not be sufficient to claim ITC. In fact, the genuineness of the transaction has to be proved as the burden to prove the genuineness of transaction as per section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003 would be upon the purchasing dealer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and held that mere production of the invoices and/or payment by cheque is not sufficient and cannot be said to be proving the burden as per section 70 of the Act, 2003.” 16. Apart from above, we also find that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Anantha Refinery (P.) Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka) found that the documents relied upon the assessee viz., receipt for goods, weighment slips, inward slips are all self made, therefore Hon’ble Court in para 10 of its order held that :- “10. From perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, we find that the finding recorded by the tribunal that the Assessing Officer has not made any independent enquiry is perverse. Therefore, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. However, on the basis of meticulous appreciation of material available on record, the Assessing Officer has recorded the conclusions, which has been reproduced above, however,

16 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 the tribunal has not dealt with the conclusions of the Assessing Officer and in a cryptic and cavalier manner has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The tribunal has also failed to appreciate that in fact, the burden was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction. In view of preceding analysis, the impugned order passed by the tribunal is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the tribunal to decide the issue afresh in the light of observations made in this judgment. In the result, the appeal is disposed of” 17. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, & also in the light of judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) as well as of Hon’ble High Courts (supra), we find force in the arguments of Ld. Departmental Representative that, in the absence of weighment slips & also in the absence of stock inward & outward register maintained at godown, the purchases cannot be conclusively established, since the assessee himself categorically accepted the fact of non-maintenance of stock inward & outward register at his godown, instead claiming to maintain in its books of accounts in Tally Software, in his statements recorded on 11-11-2021 u/s 131 of the IT Act. It was the contention of the assessee that the weighment slips were not available since the material was directly dispatched to the purchaser, however, we find that in the assessment order for A.Y. 2021-22, the Assessing Officer has reproduced some of the e-way bills related to bogus purchases

17 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 wherein the goods have been shipped to the godown of the assessee therefore, we cannot accept this contention of the assessee. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish computerised weighment slips in respect of the impugned purchases of Rs.11,67,58,437/- made by the assessee from the 13 persons identified by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Accordingly, we set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a limited direction to allow such purchases which are duly supported by weighment slips, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to call remand report from the Assessing Officer with regard to weighment slips, if any, furnished by the assessee which will be additional evidences. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and to produce the relevant weighment slips pertaining to the aforesaid impugned purchases. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

18 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 18. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.183/PAN/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.184/PAN/2025, A.Y. 2021-22 : 19. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in Law in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has not produced the copies of the weighment slips one of the documents evidencing the genuineness of the purchases even after providing multiple opportunities. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in Law in allowing the appeal of the assessee when the assessee had failed to produce the stock register, inward register and outward register evidencing the entries for individual purchases even though it was evident from the invoices/e-way bills that the goods have been shipped to godown of the assessee. This contradicts the statements of Shri Ashpaque Md. Shafi Motiwala wherein he states the reason for not availability of weighment slip as being the direct supply from the supplier to the buyer's premises. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in Law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting addition of Rs.42,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee failed in proving the genuineness of these credits by complying with the three important conditions namely, (1) the identity of the person, (2) the genuineness of the transaction and (3) the capability of the person giving the cash credit.” 20. Ground no.1 & 2 for this assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 are identical to the ground no.1 & 2 for A.Y. 2018-19 (ITA No.183/PAN/2025), therefore, our decision in ground no.1 & 2 for A.Y. 2018-19 (ITA No.183/PAN/2025) shall apply mutatis

19 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 mutandis to these ground no.1 & 2 for A.Y. 2021-22. Accordingly, the ground no.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue in this appeal are also allowed for statistical purposes. 21. There is one more ground i.e. ground no.3 regarding deletion of addition of Rs.42,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act regarding unexplained credit from M/s Akshat Enterprises. In this regard, we find that the assessee has shown purchases from the above party namely M/s Akshat Enterprises amounting in all to Rs.49,34,498/- only. We also find that the Assessing Officer has not accepted the purchases made from the above party & treated them as bogus purchases, however Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the transaction on the basis of being supported by various documents including banking transactions. Since, we have already restored the issue of bogus purchases made from M/s Akshat Enterprises & others back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in the light of weighment slips, if any, produced by the assessee, we also deem it appropriate to restore this issue of unexplained credit of Rs.42,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh upon disposal of the issue of bogus purchases made

20 ITA Nos.183 & 184/PAN/2025 from M/s Akshat Enterprises. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the Revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.184/PAN/2025 for A.Y. 2021-22 is allowed for statistical purposes. 23. To sum up, both the above captioned appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above. Order pronounced on this 04th day of September, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 04th September, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.09.08 16:18:07 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Panaji. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. DR, ITAT, Panaji. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.