9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST portal to show that the purchase was in fact made by the assessee from M/s Om Jewellers. The assessee has also submitted ledger account of M/s Om Jewellers where the impugned transaction is reflected. Thus, assessee has given all the details which are needed to explain the genuineness of the purchase made from Om Jewellers. However, the AO has considered the transaction with same other entity, namely M/s Aum Chain & Jewellery for making the addition. AR contended that assessee purchased the jewellery from M/s Om Jewellers and not from M/s Aum Chain and Jewellery. The explanation given by the assessee has not been controverted by the lower authorities and there is no corroborative evidence to support the case of revenue that assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the appellant in its books of account. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has also erred in upholding the action of the AO." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return u/s 139 of the Act on 29.10.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 22,15,57,940/-. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and retail sale of jewellery. As per the information received by AO, the assessee has made bogus purchases of Rs. 10,87,021/- from M/s Aum Chains and Jewellery. After following the due procedures u/s 148A, notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2022. Various notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) and show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act were issued to the assessee. It may be stated that a survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .05.2024. The appellant furnished documentary evidence like ledger of OM Jewellers, invoice copy, GST portal screenshot. The documentary evidence provided by the appellant had not been furnished before AO during the assessment proceedings. The appellant has provided additional documentary evidence, but no application under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules for additional evidence have been provided during appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) observed that the onus was on the appellant to prove the source of funds and the appellant did not provide any reasonable explanation and evidence. The CIT(A) relied on the decisions in case of Chuharmal vs. CIT, (1988) 172 ITR 250 (MP HC) and Manindranath Das vs. CIT and upheld the addition made by AO and dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed the addition by stating that appellant has not proved the source of fund and it has not provided any reasonable explanation and evidence which prove the source of funds. He also observed that the appellant was negligent and there was no application under Rule 46A. Hence, the addition was of Rs. 10,87,021/- u/s 37 was confirmed by CIT(A). The ld. AR had submitted that all details were given to AO and CIT(A). We find that assessee had submitted copy of invoice of M/s Om Jewellers, ledger account of Om Jewellers in the books of the assessee, GST portal showing the impugned transaction, B2B invoice list for the month of February, 2018 from GST portal to show that the purchase was in fact made by the assessee from M/s Om Jewellers. The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
