9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "Gr. No.1 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s.148 dt.30-3-22 is invalid; it is on wrong facts/erroneous footings of bogus purchases of material' while it is sales of material to the party; there is no livelink/nexus between the incorrect information of bogus purchase of material & formation of reasons to believe for escaped income of Rs. 69,01,873; in absence of prerequisite condition for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147, reopening u/s 148 would be invalid; liable to be quashed; relied on Well Trans Logistic India P Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) (SC); Meenakshi overseas (P) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fake sale bills for F.Y.2017-18 amounting to Rs. 69,01,873/- to the assessee to claim fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) and to dispose their output GST liability with the help of fake input credit as well as suppress their income by claiming fake/bogus purchases as their expenses, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. 3. Assessment was, thereafter, framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein, after making an addition of Rs. 81,44,211/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,07,76,931/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unities to pursue taxpayers their own appeals, especially when numbers of pending appeals are high. The more opportunities to a particular taxpayer are always at the cost of denying opportunity to other taxpayer of getting his/her appeal heard early. Therefore, it is assumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his own appeal. Moreover, the appellant failed to bring on records any facts or documents which can explain how the order of the AO is erroneous. In the case of Anil Goel Vs CIT, [2008] 306 ITR 212 (Punjab & Haryana), the Hon'ble High Court held as under: "4. It is thus obvious on the plain language of section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FY 2017-18, no material was procured from Moksh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the proprietary concern of appellant i.e. Tirupati Steels has sold material to Moksh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. During the assessment proceedings, purchase register was submitted by the appellant which contradicts his earlier submission. Further details of purchases/sales were requisitioned by the AO but not furnished by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. In this regard, the AO has requisitioned details from the appellant of this transaction but no satisfactory submission was made by the appellant in this regard. Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, not submitted satisfactory documentary evidences which substantiate his claim made during the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
