INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18)

Income Tax Officer, M/s. Anantam, 233, Income Tax Office, 76, Bombay Mutual Building, Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 001 PAN:AAJFA7749R (Appellant) (Respondent) :

Assessee by : Shri D.C. Jain, AR Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 04.03.2026 : 26.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue, challenging the orders of the

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless

Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'),

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2015-16 & 2017-18.

No.8818/M/2025 as the lead case.

“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of bogus purchase of Rs.68,77,348 u/s 69C under the provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases made.

ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the findings of the AO that no documentary evidences such as transport details, delivery challan etc. submitted by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the said transaction made with M/s R.K. Impex (Prop: Manish Kapadia HUF)

business of trading in gift items and electric materials. The assessee had filed its return of

income dated 30.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.2,77,026/-. The assessee’s case was

reopened vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 and order u/s 148A(d) of the Act

dated 30.07.2022 was passed, based on the information that the assessee has availed bogus

purchase bills amounting to Rs.68,77,348/- from M/s. R.K. Impex without there being

actual delivery of goods. The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO” for short) passed the

assessment order dated 23.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act thereby determining the

total income at Rs.71,54,378/- after making an addition on bogus purchases u/s 69C of the

Act amounting to Rs.68,77,348/-.

13.10.2025 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee had

furnished all documentary evidences in support of the purchases made from M/s. R.K.

ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam Impex and the same was neither controverted by the Ld. AO nor conducted any

independent enquiry to verify the genuineness of the purchase and sales made by the

assessee.

CIT(A).

contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving a finding that the Ld. AO has neither

cross verified the genuineness of purchases and sales nor has he issued notice u/s 133(6)

of the Act to the suppliers which was alleged to be bogus purchases. The Ld. DR further

stated that though the Ld. AO has not verified the genuineness of the transaction, the

assessee has not furnished complete details of the transport, delivery challan etc. to prove

the genuineness of the purchases made with M/s. R.K. Impex. The Ld. DR relied on the

order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India)

Ltd. (2025) 474 ITR 0175 and further reiterated that the issue be remanded back to Ld. AO

for proper verification of the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee and also

relied on the order of the Ld. AO.

the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that the assessee has submitted

voluminous details such as purchase and sales invoices, ledgers and bank statements etc.

discharging its initial onus casted upon it in proving the genuineness of the transaction.

The Ld. AR further stated that the Ld. AO has not verified the documents submitted by the

ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam assessee neither has issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the impugned suppliers and has

also not conducted any independent enquiry for verifying whether any business activity

was carried out by M/s. R.K. Impex. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. AO has neither

disputed the corresponding sales nor rebutted the documents filed by the assessee. The Ld.

AR placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2016-

17 where on identical facts the purchases made with M/s. R.K. Impex was held to be

genuine. The Ld. AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

The issue that requires adjudication is whether the purchases made by the assessee from

M/s. R.K. Impex was merely a bogus transaction and whether the assessee has duly

established the genuineness by cogent documentary evidences to establish its claim. It is

observed that the Ld. AO has reopened the assessee’s case based on some information that

the assessee has availed accommodation entry by way of bogus purchases from M/s. R.K.

Impex where the modus operandi was that the purchases will be made by cheque and later

cash will be received for which M/s. R.K. Impex, alleged to be an accommodation entry

provider, which would receive certain percentage as commission for such transaction.

Though the Ld. AO has specified that the assessee has furnished copies of “financial

accounts” no details as to what were the documents submitted and how those documents

are not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction were not explained at length

by the Ld. AO, who had merely stated that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness

of the transaction and since the Department has concrete information that assessee was one

of the beneficiaries of accommodation entry by way of bogus purchases, made the

ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam impugned addition. It is also evident that the Ld. AO has not specified as to whether or

not notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued on the party through whom the assessee had

made purchases and there are also no details pertaining to whether the Ld. AO had

conducted any enquiry in the premises of the accommodation entry providers as to whether

there is any actual business carried out by the said entity or not. The Ld. AO has failed to

elaborate in detail as to how the assessee is beneficiary of the alleged accommodation entry.

When the provisions of the Act clearly mandate that when the assessee has incurred any

expenditure and offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof

or the explanation is not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer then such expenditure

is deemed to be the income of the assessee not allowable as deduction under any head of

income. In the present case, the Ld. AO has categorically specified that the assessee has

submitted copies of the final accounts etc. in support of its submission and had denied the

transaction in question, the Ld. AO ought to have dealt with the documentary evidences

filed by the assessee such as the copies of ledger confirmation of parties along with bank

statement which the Ld. AO has recorded that the same was filed before him. The finding

of the Ld. AO is on the basis of vague or general observation and not specific or evidence

based finding without proper enquiry and linkage to the facts of the assessee’s case. The

Ld. AO ought to have conducted a reasonable enquiry such as issuing notices to the alleged

parties, examining whether the confirmation given by such parties are genuine, verifying

the stock in sales along with the bank trial etc. to establish the fact that the purchases are

bogus or inflated. We are conscious of the fact that various higher forums as well as the

co-ordinate Benches have held that the standard evidences to prove the identity of the

supplier, movement of goods along with payment trial has to be established by cogent

ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam documentary evidences pertaining to purchase documents, details of the supplier, delivery

and movement of goods, bank statement etc. which has to be examined by the lower

authorities pertaining to the genuineness of the said documents. In the present case in hand

the assessee claims to have filed the documents before the lower authorities which was not

discussed at length by the Ld. AO but considered by the Ld. CIT(A) who held the

transaction to be genuine and pertinently the assessee has also filed voluminous document

such as audited statement of accounts along with the tax audit reports, details of fabric

purchases and sales party-wise, fabric purchase invoices, sales invoices, purchase ledger

accounts, bank statement showing payments for fabric purchase, quantity-wise fabric

purchase register and sales register along with various other documentary evidences before

us. In the absence of any contrary finding as to the genuineness of the documentary

evidences filed by the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Further, the decisions relied upon by the Revenue in the case of Kanak Impex India Ltd.

(2025) 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom.) and Drisha Impex Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 173

taxmann.com 571 (Bom.) by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court are distinguishable on

the facts where it was held that when the assessee had been non-cooperative and failed to

furnish the substantial information to prove the genuineness of the purchases, the addition

made u/s 69C of the Act was justified which is not the facts of the present case in hand

where the assessee has filed all relevant details along with supporting documentary

evidences to substantiate its claim. Therefore, we deem it fit to dismiss the grounds of

appeal raised by the Revenue.

ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam ITA No.8819/M/2025

of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of bogus purchase of Rs.7,94,48,650/- u/s 69C r.w.s.

115BBE of the Act along with addition of Rs.7,94,486/- towards commission expenses for

availing accommodation entry by way of bogus purchases from three entities namely M/s.

R.K. Impex, M/s. R.M. Textiles, M/s. R.K. Traders, M/s. One World Industries Pvt. Ltd.

in the case of M/s. One World Group entities dated 06.11.2019 the assessee’s case was

reopened for the reason that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation

entry provided by various entities. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee had purchased

goods from the above mentioned entities alleged to be accommodation entry providers and

during the assessment proceeding the assessee is said to have furnished ledgers, details of

items purchased, details of payments made through banking channel along with sample

invoice bills, sales register, sales invoices and purchase invoices. The Ld. AO sought for

details of transportation of goods for which the assessee contended that its nature of

business was such that the transportation cost was not paid by the assessee neither while

selling nor while purchasing the goods. Further, the Ld. AO observed that in the sample

purchase bills there were no signature of receipt of the products was seen which according

to the Ld. AO are fabricated bills. The Ld. AO also relied on the statement of the parties

recorded during the search who admitted that they were mere accommodation entry

providers. The Ld. AO also disputed the transaction of sale with regard to some of the

parties whose nature of business was completely different from that of the textile business

ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam and hence held the same to be not genuine. The Ld. AO also noted that the VAT return

submitted by the assessee are revised returns and not original returns which were revised

on 29.11.2018 and 30.11.2018 which was two years after the transaction of sale and

purchase were made. Further, the Ld. AO observed that there was no sale in the month of

April, August and October to December which is not like a regular business activity and

the assessee has also not furnished the original VAT return and merely copy of the revised

return was enclosed. The Ld. AO made an addition u/s 69C of the Act on the entire

purchase value of Rs.7,94,48,640/- along with expenditure towards commission of 1% on

the alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition on the ground

that the Ld. AO has failed to conduct any independent enquiry and has also not called for

information from the alleged parties by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act nor has it

conducted any physical enquiry to examine the identity of the suppliers and buyers. The

Ld. CIT(A) further held that the Ld. AO has merely relied on the information received from

the Investigation Wing and beyond that there is no concrete evidence in support of the

Revenue’s contention.

It is observed that the assessee, for the year under consideration, has filed documentary

evidences along with written submission running to 436 pages which includes details of

purchase and sale along with purchase invoices, purchase ledger accounts, bank statements

and purchase and sale register. The Ld. AO has himself recorded the same but had

specified certain discrepancies in the documents filed by the assessee and has also held that

the assessee has not furnished the details of the transportation of goods, for which the

ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam assessee has contended that it has purchased goods on “landed in warehouse” terms where

LRs are not received by them from the suppliers as per the trade practice where the assessee

sale is on “Ex-warehouse” terms in which case the customer arranges for loading and pick

up.

as to the existence of these parties or verifications carried out by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO

has extensively relied on the statement of the parties whom the assessee had requested

during the assessment proceeding to cross examine. It is observed that the assessee’s

request for cross examining the parties was also denied by the Ld. AO on various grounds.

There is no iota of doubt that the assessee has discharged its onus of proving the fact that

the purchases are genuine by cogent documentary evidences which ought to have been

rebutted by the Assessing Officer, the failure to do so will benefit the assessee in holding

that the Revenue has not controverted the assessee’s claim. The findings given by us in

ITA No.8818/M/2025 on identical issue will apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal as well

and hence on the said observation the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are hereby

dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.03.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 26.03.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S.

ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam Copy of the Order forwarded to:

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai