Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI
Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 17.12.2025 17.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case, the Cross Objection is time barred by 59 days. The same has been requested to be condoned through an affidavit, portions from which are extracted as under:
“I, Komal Prasad Singhal, son of Satya Prakash Singhal, aged about 60 years, residing at C-37, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi-110092, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. 1. That I am the applicant in the above matter and am fully conversant with the facts of the case.
2. That the present affidavit is being filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing of cross objections before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, arising out of the appeal filed by the Revenue on 21.07.2025 against the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19, pursuant to the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act.
3. That the applicant received intimation of the appeal filed by the Revenue containing Form 36 and Grounds of Appeal on 13.08.2025. However, due to inadvertence, the applicant forgot to hand over these documents to the tax consultant for necessary action, and consequently, no steps were taken in respect thereof.
4. That upon receipt of a notice of hearing on 31.10.2025 via email from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(7), New Delhi (email: delhi.ito58.7@incometax.gov.in), fixing the hearing for 17.12.2025, the applicant immediately forwarded the said notice to the tax consultant.
5. That on making further enquiries, the consultant asked for the copy of Form 36 and the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue, whereupon the applicant recollected having received the same earlier but having inadvertently failed to hand them over. The said documents were then immediately forwarded to the consultant.
6. That thereafter, upon advice of the legal counsel, the applicant promptly took steps to file the cross objections along with an application for condonation of delay. The cross objections were ultimately filed on 10/11/2025, resulting in a delay of 59 days.
7. That the delay in filing the cross objections was purely inadvertent, unintentional and beyond the control of the applicant, and there was no willful negligence or mala fide intention in causing such delay.”
1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said affidavit, the CO is admitted for adjudication, along with the main appeal filed by the Revenue.
The Revenue’s appeal and the Cross Objection arise from order dated 28.05.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. In this case, an addition of Rs.84,96,000/- has been made u/s 68 of the Act on the allegation that the entire quantum of purchases made from one Madan Gopal Gupta, were bogus. It is noted that in the body of the order, on page 8 the Ld. AO has proposed to make this addition u/s 69C of the Act, whereas in the final computation such addition has been made u/s 68 of the Act.
2.1 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where he could succeed on the basis of detailed findings given in the impugned order. The crux of the findingsare as under: i. The purchases have been disallowed without disturbing the corresponding sales; ii. The AO made additions purely on account of third party information, without any independent verification; and iii. The addition has been made without rejecting the books of account u/s 145 of the Act.
2.2 The Revenue is aggrieved with this action and has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:
1. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.84,96,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act.
2. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that the addition was made by the AO by disallowing purchases without making any independent enquiry when, the assessee did not furnish any cogent evidences in the form of transport bills to prove the genuineness of purchases during the assessment proceedings.
3. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that the assessee discharged the onus on him by submitting the necessary evidence as required by the AO, when the evidence submitted by the assessee could not prove the genuineness of purchases.
4. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law7, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that the AO cannot question the genuineness of expenditure without formally rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act, when the AO’s conclusion that the purchase was bogus was based on the failure of the assessee to prove the claim of completeness or correctness of accounts to the satisfaction of the AO.
5. That the grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to each other.
6. That the appellant craves leave to add/alter/delete/modify any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”
The ld. DR argued and pointed out that there is a clear recording by the Ld. AO that no evidences of GST returns being filed were presented before the Ld. AO. Also no transport bills have been filed in justification of the said purchases. The Ld. DR assailed the impugned order by stating that the Ld. CIT(A) has misdirected himself in dismissing the fact finding done by the Ld. AO.
3.1 Per contra, the Ld. AR pointed out that substantial documents were presented before the authorities below in reply to the AO’s show- cause notice dated 21.03.2022 and the same were pointed out in the paper book at pages 10 to 20 thereon. It was averred that the payments were made through banking channels and even transport details were filed in the shape of tax invoices which have been placed at pages 15 to 19 of the paper book. It was the submission that the Ld. AO has disregarded these evidences and has simply made the impugned addition on the basis of third-party evidence, which could not be corroborated by him.
3.2 The Ld. AR made a statement at the Bar that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the Cross Objection.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. DR/AR and have gone through the records before us, including the contents of the paper book. We find that the assessee has completely discharged his onus in proving the alleged bogus purchases and has even provided the Ld. AO with considerable evidences to show that the purchases actually took place and were duly paid for through banking channels. We also find that the transport details have been supplied before the AO and thus, even that allegation is not borne out by the facts on record.
Accordingly, we confirm the action of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of Revenue.
Since the assessee has decided not to press the Cross Objection, hence the same is dismissed as well.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are both dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.12.2025