CICC AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(4), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the I.d. First Appellate Authority (FAA), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, erred in confirming the action of Ld. A. O. of issuing the impugned notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961."

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. of impugned addition of ₹6,19,756/- on account of alleged bogus purchases only on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department without rejecting books of account."

4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. of impugned addition of ₹21,74,030/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of The Income Tax Act. 1961".

Sr. DR) of the revenue. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that assessee is habitual defaulter in not making timely submission, they have not filed submissions either before assessing officer or before ld CIT(A). The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 144. The assessing officer made addition on account of bogus purchases shown from fictitious entities which were providing bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. The assessing officer disallowed 100% of purchase expenses. The assessing officer also made addition under section 68 of Rs. 21,74,030/- by disallowing sundry creditors. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of assessing officer in a details order, despite the fact that no submission was made by assessee on various grounds of appeal. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the additions. Here again, no submissions or documents if filed by the assessee, despite the fact that this appeal is pending for more than one year. The appeal may be dismissed with cost.

3. I have considered the submissions of ld. Sr. DR for the revenue and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information from Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra about the fictitious entities/dealers who were issuing bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. The name of certain bogus bill suppliers was forwarded to the DGIT Investigation, Mumbai. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries from Nisha Enterprise and Payal Enterprise, which were identified as bogus entry provider. The assessing officer recorded that despite giving various notices, the assessee failed to substantiate purchases from such parties and in absence of any evidence; he disallowed 100% purchases from both the parties. The assessing officer also noted that assessee has shown sundry creditors of Rs.

21,74,030/-. On show cause notice, the assessee failed to prove the claim of supporting evidence. Thus, the assessing officer added entire sundry creditors. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee again failed to furnish any submission or evidence in support of their claim. The ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal on the basis of material available on record.