Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 12-August-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2018-19 dated 25.09.2024, “Sir, I am not aware of this fact that I am the proprietor of this Firm. The only explanation of this fact is that in the year 2017, my relative namely Nipu Roy, residing at Taldi south, Canning-1, South 24 Parganas WB-743376 “vi) Delivery of goods not proved -The assessee was asked to furnish complete stock records in respect of purchases and sales made by the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 21.10.2022 at Point No.5 but assessee furnished only monthly stock summary for the month of August 2017, January 2018 to March 2018 in reply dated 15.02.2023. Day to day stock register showing receipt of goods from these parties was not furnished. Further, the stock register for the whole year is not furnished. The assessee has not furnished supporting documentary evidences in respect of delivery of goods such as delivery challan showing receipts of goods in factory/godown, octroi/toll tax receipts, weighing slips, daily stock inward register to prove that goods mentioned in purchase bills was actually delivered to the assessee. Thus the assessee has failed to prove actual delivery of goods. (vii) Non-genuine suppliers M/s Aerocom Trade Exim Prop. Haradhan Devnath was found indulging in issuance of fraudulent/fake invoices of huge amounts to other entities without actual supply of goods. CGST department found that this entity has taken registration under GST regime
Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given his findings as under after examining the assessment order and other details filed:
“6.3 In view of the above detailed reasons AO rejected the appellant's claim and concluded the assessment after making the addition u/s.69C in the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 21.03.2023. Thus, it is evident that not merely based on the investigation report alone rather Assessing Officer has carefully took into consideration the Investigation Report and has gone into the submissions of the appellant and has explicitly stated that appellant did not submit any details w.r.t. actual delivery of goods and therefore made the addition u/s 69C. Further Assessing Officer has also mentioned that the appellant, due to the special nature of the case, appellant ought to have produced the parties from whom it claims to have purchased the goods. In this connection Assessing Officer relied on the Apex Court judgement in the case of State of Karnataka Vs M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt Ltd wherein it is held as follows: (the relevant para has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A)) 6.4 In fact during appellate proceedings also appellant made the same submission which is submitted during the assessment proceedings. The AO has thoroughly examined those submissions and has passed a very “[i] Brief facts of the case is - On the basis of credible information in the form of elaborated investigation report from the Investigation Wing [ which is an integral & elite wing of the Income Tax Department] w.r.t. bogus purchases from M/s. Aerocom Trade Exim amounting to Rs.80,46,150/- and from M/s. Eastern Sales India of Rs.85,15,289/- totalling of Rs. 1,65,61,439/- obtained from the departmental "Insight Portal", after being satisfied and on prior approval of the appropriate authority, the case was re-opened u/s.147 of the I.T. Act,1961 by issuing notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 31.03.2022. In response, ITR for A.Y.2018-19 filed on 26.04.2022 declaring total income of Rs. NIL after claiming deduction u/s.80IE of the I.T. Act,1961 amounting to Rs.30,39,210/-. Accordingly, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice(s) u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act,1961 were issued. During assessment proceedings, the AO after due examining all the details/ documents/ explanation filed by the assessee & records, being not satisfactory, has opined that documents produced were not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the purchases and as well as actual delivery of goods. Further, the AO in his order, vide page no.-9 onwards elaborately discussed about the Investigation report and vide page no.- 44 onwards also cited various judgements in favour of his opinion as drawn, supra. The AO also placed his reliance upon Hon'ble Apex Court's recent decision dated 13.03.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2023 in the case of State of Karnataka vs M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. and in group of appeals. Vide page no.-44 of AO's order, after due examination of information gathered/ details/ documents/ explanations available on record, the AO opined & stated that "…….. In then above statement, the above party admitted that he was never engaged in any kind of business activity and he did not know M/s Ri-Bhoi Ispat and Rolling Mills. He further stated that around 7-8 years ago, some person namely Mr. Surendra Sharma took copy of his personal documents such as Aadhar Card, PAN