Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.09.2025 for the AY 2022-23.
The issue raised in ground no.1 is general in nature.
The issue raised in ground no.2 is not pressed at the time of hearing and is dismissed as not pressed.
The issue raised in ground nos.3 to 5 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹3,06,54,586/- by ld. CIT(A) as made by the ld. AO by 4.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 11.10.2022, declaring total income at ₹2,86,92,950/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS), for three reasons namely; i) creditors more than 50% of the purchases, ii) taxable receipts from other sources shown in TDS 2, is higher than the receipts shown in the ITR, and iii) high liability as compared to low income/ receipt in ITR. The statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were replied by the assessee by furnishing the details and evidences as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee is a sole distributor of ADMA India Pvt. Ltd, AMIT Biotech asndf Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. Thus the assessee is engaged in the business of supplying agricultural receipts, fertilizer, plant and saplings etc. to West Bengal Government Seed Corporation. The above said three parties had authorised the assessee to participate in the tendering process, which are floated by West Bengal State Seed Corporation Limited (WBSSCL) and after procure the orders if tender is success , the assessee supplies the supply order to these three parties and accordingly, supplies the materials to the Corporation . During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has made total purchases of ₹37,23,18,341/- vis-à-vis the total sales of ₹38,31,82,335/-. Out of the total sales, the sales to WBSSCL were ₹37,10,00,936/-. The assessee made purchase from the three parties as per details below:-
“ADMA India Pvt. Ld. ₹16,24,17,517/- AMI Bio Tech ₹3,46,71,886/- 4.3. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also upheld the order of the ld. AO by holding that the assessee has not furnished the records to substantiate the physical delivery of goods for the purchases and accordingly, justified the addition.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of agricultural raw materials/seeds/fertilizers etc. We note and during the year out of the total sales of ₹38,31,82,335/-, the assessee supplied material worth of ₹37.10,00,936/- to WBSSCL a West Bengal owned entity. We note that the three suppliers from whom the assessee used to buy the materials namely; ADMA India Pvt. ltd, AMIT Biotech and Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. We note that the assessee made substantial purchases during the year and the evidences were placed before the ld. AO as well as CIT(A). We note that the assessee was 4.4. We note that the addition was made by the AO merely on the ground that the noticesu/s 133(6) of the Act were not complied whereas the assessee has placed before the ld. AO as well as before the appellate authority the purchases invoices in certain cases along with e-way bills, transport documents etc., along with books of 4.5. We also note that the AO has not pointed out any defect or deficiency in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee but rejected the same on the ground that certain invoices were not produced and 133(6) notices were not replied by the suppliers. In our opinion the rejection of books of account without pointing out any defect is bad in law and can not be sustained. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Delhi) and by the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Om Overseas (2009) 315 ITR 185(P&H). In our considered opinion the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment order is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the ld. AO to
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 15.04.2026.