ILESH JITENDRA SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

Briefly stated, facts o of income electronic Rs.5,36,643/- which Act, 1961 (in short received from the Sal bogus bills from cert basis of information r action were conduct who had issued bogu Officer recorded reas and reopened the as the Act on 19.07.201 served upon the asse u/s 133(6) of the Ac parties but all the no authorities as ‘left’ an the assessee and ass response was filed b Assessing Officer als bogus bill issuer) pa done any business o ‘hawala’ or ‘bogus’ Regarding the paym received through che account and after c ITA of the case are that the assessee cally on 08.09.2011 declaring h was processed u/s 143(1) of ‘the Act’). Subsequently, the i les Tax Department that assess tain parties totalling to Rs.9,66 received from the Sales Tax Dep ted by the Income-tax Departm us bills. In view of information ons to believe that income esca sessment by way of issue of no 3. Thereafter statutory notices w essee. The Assessing Officer als ct to all the above mentioned a otices returned back with the r nd ‘not known’. This fact was co essee was asked to justify its pu by the assessee in this regard. so gathered affidavits filed by t arties wherein they affirmed tha of sales of purchases of goods bills to parties against comm ment also those parties affirmed eques from bill seekers were de learing of the same, cash of w Ilesh Jitendra Shah 2 A No. 4386/MUM/2025 e filed its return total income at the Income-tax information was ee had obtained 6,393/-. On the partment survey ment on parties n, the Assessing aped assessment otice u/s 148 of were issued and so issued notice alleged purchase remark of postal ommunicated to urchases but no Thereafter, the those ‘hawala’ ( at they had not but only issued mission received. d that payment eposited in bank withdrawal was handed over to the r amount. 3. In view of abov purchases as unexpl added to the income Ld. CIT(A), the asses parties should have CIT(A) rejected the c assessee did not su Assessing Officer to provided multiple o decision of the Hon’b Kanak Impex India ( the finding of the As CIT(A) is reproduced “6.6 In light o PCIT v. Kana assessee fails cogent eviden expenditure p under Section Applying this categorically purchase bills been produce The addition its entirety in down in the K Accordingly appellant is ITA recipient of bill after deducting ve observations, the Assessing lained in terms of section 69C e of the assessee. On further ap see contended that cross-exam e been provided to the assess contention of the assessee for ubmit any information or atten brief the genuineness of the opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) ble Bombay High Court in the ca 2025) 172 taxmann.com 283 (B ssessing Officer. The relevant fin as under: of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay H ak Impex (India) Ltd. (2025), it is clear tha s to substantiate the genuineness of pur nce and merely relies on book entries the pertaining to such bogus purchases can b n 69C of the Income Tax Act. s ratio to the present case, since i admitted by the beneficiaries themselv s are not genuine, and no supporting doc d to substantiate the transactions. made by the Assessing Officer should b n accordance with the settled legal pos Kanak Impex judgment. the ground No.s 1.1 raised dismissed.” Ilesh Jitendra Shah 3 A No. 4386/MUM/2025 the commission Officer held the C of the Act and ppeal before the mination of those see but the Ld. the reason that nded before the AO even after relying on the ase of Pr. CIT v. Bombay) upheld nding of the Ld. High Court in at where the rchases with en the entire be disallowed it has been ves that the uments have be upheld in sition as laid by the 4. Before us, the L Book and submitted invoice, inventory le Assessing Officer bu requested that matt Assessing Officer for 5. We have heard the relevant material clearly recorded tha returned back un-se assessee, (ii) the bog business activity and of commission (iii) received from parties which returned back Assessing Officer, th But no compliance w contrary before us, t by the assessee had The ld DR was not assessee. In such cir one more opportunit to the file of the Asse is directed to file a ITA