9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pa Saluja v. Income Tax Officer in respect of assessment year [AY] 2014-15. The Assessee has projected the following questions for consideration of this court: "(i) Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in upholding the wrongful application of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on alleged bogus purchases? (ii) Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in upholding addition of entire amount of the alleged bogus purchases to the income of the Appellant, instead of only gross profit margin embedded in the purchases? (iii) Whether the Impugned Order passed by the Ld. ITAT is perverse?" 2. The Assessee had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 03.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs. 15,75,420/-. The Assessee's return was selected for scrutiny and the AO i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchases. 4. The Assessee appealed the said assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Assessee contested the addition made on the ground that she had supplied all particulars including suppliers address, Permanent Account Numbers, balance confirmation as well as suppliers copy of the income tax return during the assessment proceedings. She also claimed that she was not provided sufficient time by the AO for ensuring compliance of the summons issued under Section 131 of the Act and the additions were made only on the ground that they had not personally appeared before the AO. 5. The learned CIT(A) found that the AO had made additions under Section 68 of the Act and proceeded to examine the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.: (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) in support of her contention that an addition could not be made merely because the supplier had not appeared before the AO. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the Assessee contended that none of the contentions advanced were considered by the learned ITAT. 10. Mr. Puneet Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that the AO had not made any addition under Section 68 of the Act. He contended that the additions were made on the basis that the amounts reflected as purchases, were not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. He contended that the AO had disallowed the expenses reflected in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
