Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in wholesale and retail trade, filed a return declaring income of Rs. 18,10,940. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 2,11,08,536 on account of bogus purchases. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as defective. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as defective without affording proper opportunity, and whether the addition for bogus purchases was correctly sustained.
Sections Cited
250, 144B, 14B, 143(2), 142(1), 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI
O R D E R
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the Assessee is against order dated 04.07.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] arising out of assessment order dated 13.02.2024 of the Assessment Unit passed u/s 144B r.w.s 14B of the Act for Assessment Year 2022-23.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running the wholesale and retail trade of ghee, oil and such other products under the sole proprietorship business under the trade name (sole proprietorship) of M/s Atul Trading Co. during the year under consideration. The assessee was e-filed return of income on 15.10.2022 declaring total income at Rs.18,10,940/-. Later on, the case of assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. The assesse has shown gross turnover at Rs.35,57,29,186/- on which gross profit was also shown at Rs.51,21,676/-. The assessee has taken accommodation entry through bogus purchases from Ravindra Oil Group for reducing his tax liability for the year under consideration. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 01.06.2023, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 12.06.2023, 05.02.2023, 07.11.2023 and 16.01.2024 were issued to the assessee for furnishing the reply. In response to the notices, part compliance was made by assessee. On completion of proceedings, the Ld. AO vide order dated 13.02.2024 made addition of Rs.2,11,08,536/-. Against order dated 13.02.2024 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2025.
Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds: “
1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. in sustaining the additions made by the Id. AO at total income of Rs. 2,29,19,480/- against the returned income for Rs. 18,10,940/-
2. That in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,11,08,536/- under section 69C alleging the same to be bogus purchases forming part of purchases shown by the assessee which is totally against the prevailing facts and circumstance of the case and deserves to be deleted.
3. That in view of the prevailing facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law by solely relying on third party information that too without providing any opportunity for cross examination on request of the assessee.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. by solely relying on third party information and made addition u/s 69C for Rs. 2,11,08,536/- entirely based on surmises, presumptions and conjectures that too without providing any opportunity for verification to meet the ends of justice.
5. That in view of the prevailing facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO for the entire alleged out of book purchases and that too without rejecting the audited books of accounts and without pointing out any specific defect or challenging the correctness of the audited books account which action is entirely based on mere surmises, presumptive and conjectures and not in accordance to law.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO for the entire alleged out of book purchases for Rs. 2,11,08,536/- which shall if any, only be restricted to the profit element in accordance to the law.
That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground of appeal
at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without pre-judice to each other.”
4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
5. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal being defective.
6. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 04.07.2025 dismissed appeal being defective. In view of above material facts, in the interest of justice, it is considered expedient to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.