ARVINDKUMAR SHI vs. HYAM TRIPATHI,RAJKOTVS.THE ITO, WARD-1(9), BHAVNAGAR

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing ex-parte order which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the action of learned AO in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2–

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming, the action of learned AO in making addition of Rs.24,60,158/- under section 69C of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the action of learned AO in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act in relation to addition of Rs.24,60,158/-made in respect of alleged bogus purchases.

5. Alternatively and without prejudice, the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases ought to have been restricted to the extent of profit element embedded in such purchases.

6. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. Such an act is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act.

8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act.

9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded three opportunities of hearing to furnish the requisite details, clarifications, and explanations in support of genuineness of the transaction. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. We also find that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of its transaction even before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, the assessee would produce all necessary details, clarifications, and documentary evidence before the Revenue Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– authorities in support of his claim. In view of the above and in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with a direction to verify the documentary evidence to be furnished by the assessee and decide the matter in accordance with law. The assessee shall submit all relevant bank statements, documents, and supporting evidence, and to cooperate fully with the Revenue authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.