Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's case was reopened following a search and survey action. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition on account of bogus purchases, leading to a significant increase in the total income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the documentary evidence filed by the assessee and had not gone into the merits of the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by considering all the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM Shri. Satish Mody
Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: GROUND NO.
1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the learned ITO 19(2)(3) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. This must be annulled and quashed, since it is capricious in nature and has been made, ignoring the established and undisputed facts, with an intention to punish the appellant. GROUND NO, 2 The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act issued by the Ld. AO. The said reopening is contrary to the facts and evidence on record and the same be deleted. GROUND NO. 3 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition to the appellants total income made by the Ld. AO, a sum of Rs.4,62,70,654/- as bogus purchases u/s.69C. The said addition be deleted, since it is contrary to the facts of the case and the applicable provisions of the Act.”
3. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed its return of income, declaring total income at Rs. 17,30,145/- for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened pursuant to the search and survey action carried out in the case of Shri. Bhawarlal Jain, dated 03.10.2013, where it was found that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by the entities managed by Shri. Bhawarlal Jain by way of bogus purchases, vide notice u/s. 148, dated 15.03.2019. The assessee had filed its return of income dated 07.09.2019 in response to notice u/s. 148, declaring the same as returned income. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. After duly considering the assessee’s submission, the ld. AO passed the assessment order dated 15.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, determining total income at Rs. 4,80,00,800/- after making addition/disallowance on bogus purchases u/s. 69C of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,62,70,654/-.
4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 20.02.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim and failed to furnish documentary evidences to controvert the finding of ld. AO.
5. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of ld. CIT(A).
(A.Y. 2012-13) MV Enterprise 6. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the assessee has filed all the documentary evidences before the lower authorities which was not considered neither the ld. AO nor the ld. CIT(A). Further, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has merely sought for remand report from the ld. AO and since the assessee has failed to reply for the same, it was deemed that the assessee had no objection to the remand report. The ld. AR further contended that beyond this the ld. CIT(A) has not perused the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and has not decided the issue based on the said documentary evidences. The ld. AR prayed that this issue be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate on the merits of case on the basis of the submission of the assessee along with the documentary evidences which were filed before the lower authorities.
The ld. DR for the revenue on the other hand controverted the same and relied on the order of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has furnished various documentary evidences such as the tax/retail invoices along with proof of delivery of goods, PAN of suppliers, TIN/CST Number, Stock records, payment details, etc. which were not dealt with by the ld. CIT(A) as the same is evident from the impugned order. Pertinently, it is also observed from the said order that the assessee has not filed any additional evidence before the first appellate authority, where all the documents which were before the ld. CIT(A) was already filed before the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) has merely dismissed the assessee’s appeal stating that the assessee has not objected to the remand report furnished by the ld. AO and evidently, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to (A.Y. 2012-13) MV Enterprise consider the relevant documentary evidence which was already filed by the assessee. It is also observed that the ld. CIT(A) has not gone into the merits of the issue and hence we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee on the merits of the case after duly considering the relevant documentary evidences submitted by the assessee. Needless it is to say that sufficient opportunity of hearing is to be given to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to strictly comply with the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A).