Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a trader, had their assessment reopened based on alleged accommodation entries or bogus purchase bills. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 based on grounds that appeared contradictory and ambiguous regarding the parties from whom purchases were made.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable as the reasons recorded for reopening were ambiguous and contradictory. The Tribunal also noted that the original assessment had already examined and accepted the purchases as genuine, indicating the reopening was based on a 'change of opinion'. Further, on merits, the addition was deleted because the AO had not doubted the sales, and purchases are essential for sales in a trading business.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated based on ambiguous and contradictory reasons and whether the addition on merits was justified when original assessment accepted purchases.
Sections Cited
148, 143(3), 147, 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY
ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: These two appeal by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for AY 2013-14 dated 30.01.2025 and for AY 2014-15 dated 07.03.2025, respectively. Since, facts germane to the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order.
For the sake of convenience, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is taken up as a lead case and the facts are narrated from the said appeal.
&2999/Del/2025 (AY 2014-15) 3. Shri Ajay Wadhwa, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is a trader, the assessee filed return of income for AY 2013-14 on 19.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.3,67,410/-. Thereafter, notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2019 and assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed vide order dated 25.12.2019. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessment for AY 2013-14 was reopened on the ground that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries to the extent of Rs.59,75,000/- during Financial Year 2012-13 from Jai Shiv Enterprises proprietary concern of Shri Dilip Kumar. The ld. Counsel pointed that in later part of the reasons the AO alleged that the assessee has obtained bogus bills of purchase from Global Trading Company proprietary concern of Dalip Kumar, whereas, during relevant period the assessee had no transaction with Global Trading Company. He submitted that during assessment proceedings, the AO had made inquiries regarding purchase of the same amount i.e. Rs.59,75,000/- from M/s. R.P Enterprises, Kashyap Trading Company and M/s. Nisha Traders. The AO after being satisfied with the preliminary inquiries from the aforesaid companies accepted the transactions as genuine. Now for the same very amount, the assessee has reopened the assessment alleging the transaction as bogus with some other entity. The ld. Counsel asserted that once the sales declared by the assessee having been accepted, books of account not rejected, the purchases which were earlier accepted in the original assessment proceedings cannot be held to be bogus in reassessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel further pointed that in the case of Ram Kishan Bindal vs. ITO in for AY 2011-12, the assessment was reopened on identical set of facts. The matter travelled to the &2999/Del/2025 (AY 2014-15) Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2022, deleted the addition on merits.
Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently defending the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The assessee has assailed reopening of assessment. A perusal of reasons recorded for reopening reveal that Revenue has alleged bogus purchases by the assessee from M/s Jai Shiv Enterprises a proprietorship concern of Shri Dilip Kumar. I find contradiction in the reasons recorded by the AO. As in the first part of the reasons it is alleged that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries from M/s. Jai Shiv Enterprises, however, in the later part of the reasons i.e. para 4 it has been alleged that the assessee has obtained bogus bills of purchase of Rs.59,75,000/- from Global Trading Company. Thus, there is ambiguity in the reasons with respect to name of party from whom the assessee is stated to have made bogus purchases. The documents on record show that, during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had called for further information u/s. 133(6) of the Act with regard to purchases amounting to Rs.59,75,000/- by the assessee from R.P Enterprises, Kashyap Trading Company and M/s. Nisha Traders during Financial Year 2012-13. The assessee was asked to furnish ITR’s for the year under consideration. The AO vide order dated 25.12.2019 accepted the return of income without making any addition. Thus, I am of considered view that since the AO had already examined the issue and had accepted the purchases of Rs. 59,75,000/- as genuine, the reassessment proceedings were initiated merely on the basis of ‘change of opinion’, hence, not sustainable. Even otherwise reasons for reopening are ambiguous, the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed on this score alone. I hold and direct, accordingly.
&2999/Del/2025 (AY 2014-15) 6. Even on merits, the addition is liable to be deleted as the Assessing Officer has not doubted the sales. The assessee is a trader, without purchases there cannot be sales. The Assessing Officer has neither raised any doubt on the sales nor on the closing stock. Hence, the addition of Rs.59,75,000/- is deleted on merits as well.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. for AY 2014-15 8. Both sides unanimously stated that the facts in the impugned assessment year are identical to those in A.Y. 2013–14. The reasons recorded for reopening are placed at page 32 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, I find that the assessment has been reopened on identical set of facts with similar ambiguous reasoning. Hence, the findings given while deciding assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013–14 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present assessment year as well.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
To sum up, appeals of the assessee in &2999/Del/2025 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 27th day of October, 2025.