M/S KUBER AGRICOM INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not providing adequate opportunity of hearing before deciding the appeal in as much as all the 3 notices were issued in the month of August, 2024 which could not be responded as these notices did not came to the notice of assessee and thereafter no further notice was issued.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 8,03,480/-. Information was there. As per the information available on insight portal, a high risk CRIU/VRU information received on the basis of search action carried out on 31.10.2018 in the case of some Mr. Sumit Jindal, it is found that the assessee has taken accommodation entry in the form of bogus bills of purchase without actual supply of goods of Rs. 51,14,523/- from M/s. Mool Chand Shivam Kumar, which is one of the bogus entities through which Mr. Sumit Jindal had provided bogus bills without actual supply of goods services. In consequence to this order u/s. 148A (d) and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2023. After thorough deliberations between the assessee and the AO, case of the assessee was assessed after addition u/s. 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 12, 78,630/- on account of bogus purchase and Rs. 1, 02,290/- on account of commission thereon. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non- compliance on designated dates as described in para 4 of the appeal order. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us.