INCOME TAX OFFICER 19 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PUJA MANISH JAIN, MUMBAI

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in the not appreciating the fact that the assessment proceedings are re-opened u/s 148 on the basis of an information from the Investigation Wing-Mumbai in case of Shri Bhawarlal Jain, a hawala entry operator."

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,49,000/- made by the AO on account of bogus loan, ignoring the fact that the addition was made based on credible information received from the DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai?"

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) while deciding the issue has ignored the fact that action of the AO was based on the information/Report received from the DGIT (Investigation Wing), Mumbal about the hawala traders were indulged only in providing accommodation entries in the form of issuing bogus Sales/Purchase bills without supplying any goods and the assessee was found to be one of the beneficiaries, who had obtained accommodation entries for bogus loans amounting Rs. 4,49,000/- from M/s. Chandra Impex, and thereby to suppress it's true profit."

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that M/s Chandra Impex is a partnership firm, in which Mr. Manish B. Jain(Husband of appellant) and Bhanwarlal M. Jain (Father-in-Law of the appellant) are the partners."

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in laus, the Ld. CIT(A) erred not appreciating that the burden of proof was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions."

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has ignored that though there was no dispute that the bogus loans transactions were accounted and so act of infraction of law was committed in violation of section 74(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2022 and therefore such expenses is not allowed as per express provisions u/s. 37 of the Act.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the decision of the of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2016) 292 CTR (Gul) 354, Dated. 16.01.2017, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal and held that once a findings of act has been given that entire purchases/loans shown on the basis of fictitious invoices and debited in the P & L account are established as bogus, then restricting the addition to a curtained percentage goes against the principles of section 68 and 690 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and when the transactions are from bogus suppliers or concerns, the entire purchases/loans are Hable to disallowed?"

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the decision in the case of M/s. Swetamber Steels Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmadabad, has been ignored by the Ld. CIT (A), which had conformed the disallowance of the bogus purchases/loans, by stating that the transactions shown from respective parties were found non- genuine and the decision of the ITAT was upheld by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

"The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one another.""