9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable, and thus the same is directed to be deleted. As a result, the impugned order on this issue is set aside and ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. - Ms. Padmavathy S., Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Rahul Hakkani For the Revenue : Shri Surendra Meena, Sr.DR ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 04/06/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ learned CIT(A) ], for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: The Appellant appeals against the impugned order dated 4 June 2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( Learned CIT(A)/NFAC ) under section ( u/s ) 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( The Act ), on the following amongst the other grounds each of which are independent of and without prejudice to, one another: Ground No. 1: Re-opening/ reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law 1.1 The Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming addition of Rs 5,30,00,000/- u/s 69C being purchase of crude oil from Mint Agro Tech Pvt Ltd without appreciating that Section 69C is not applicable as the purchases are genuine and duly supported by purchase invoices, lorry receipts, toll receipts and waybills issued by the VAT department, signed ledger confirmation by Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. and confirmation received from the transporter i.e. OTS Ltd. Moreover, the sales are accepted and books of accounts are not rejected and there is no evidence of cash being received back by Appellant as alleged, and hence the addition of Rs. 5,30,00,000/- may be deleted. Ground No. 3: Violation of principle of Natural Justice and non-grant of opportunity of being heard 3.1 On the given facts, circumstances and legal propositions, the Learned CIT(A)/NFAC and Learned AO erred in passing the order in absence of reasonable opportunity to the Appellant of making the submissions, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed. 3.2 On the given facts, circumstances and legal propositions, the Learned CIT(A)/NFAC and Learned AO erred in not providing any documentation/ statement reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled his return of income on 12/04/2019 declaring a total income of INR 59,45,61,890. After receipt of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the assessee filed its objections, which were disposed of vide order dated 10/10/2019. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to provide the complete details of the transactions with M/s Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. made during the year under consideration. Since the assessee could not respond to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, a show cause notice was issued on 29/11/2019. After perusing the bills and vouchers submitted by the assessee in regard to the claim of purchase of goods, the Assessing Officer ( AO ) vide order dated 04/12/2019 held that the bills look non-genuine as most of the bills are same and no specific address details are mentioned herein. The AO further held that the quantity supplied mentioned on the bills is the same in most of the cases which again shows that the paper trail has been created just to camouflage the actual transactions. Accordingly, the AO concluded that the amount deposited by the assessee in the bank account of the company, M/s Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., for cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and waybills, was scrutinized by the AO. The AO found that the bills appeared non-genuine, with repetitive details and lack of specific address information. This led to the conclusion that these were paper transactions created to camouflage the actual nature of the transactions. The appellant's inability to provide corroborative evidence from Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. further weakened their case. Section 69C deals with unexplained expenditure. The AO's addition under this section was based on the finding that the transactions with Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. were non-genuine and that the appellant failed to explain the source of the expenditure satisfactorily. The bank statements and ledger accounts provided by the appellant did not conclusively establish the genuineness of the transactions. The repetitive and non-specific nature of the supporting documents further supported the AO's conclusion that the transactions were intended to inflate expenses artificially. Conclusion: After considering the submissions of the appellant and the findings of the Assessing Officer, it is evident that the reassessment was conducted following due process and based on reasonable grounds. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmation from M/s Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. before the AO vide its submission dated 09/02/2090, which forms part of the paper book from pages 586-594, wherein M/s Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. confirmed that 5,05,260 Kg of raw material (crude Mentha Oil) amounting to INR 64,42,53,319 was sold to the assessee during the financial year 2011-12, against which payments were received in the bank accounts through RTGS/NEFT fund transfers made by the assessee. Further, we find that the assessee also filed a confirmation from the transporter with respect to the transport of goods from M/s Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee during the year under consideration. From the perusal of the aforesaid confirmation, which forms part of the paper book from pages 595-596, we find that the transporter not only provided the consignment no. but also provided the bill no. as well as the quantity of the consignment. We find that apart from making a general allegation that the bills look non-genuine since most of them are the same, the lower authorities did not point out any infirmity in the detailed documents, as noted above, submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Having carefully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
