Ashriya Consultive (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO

“With regards to the above purchase transactions, several opportunities have been provided to the assessee to justify the transaction by uploading corroborative evidences through e-proceedings response by issuing notices/letter/SCN. Further, notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to the above parties. However, no response has been received from their end. Thus, it is established that the assessee has not provided any evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases made by it from the above persons/entities. The above suppliers to whom notice u/s. 133(6) were issued have also not responded in any manner. Hence, the facts of the case clearly show that the purchases made from above parties are not genuine but only to inflate the purchases and to reduce its tax liabilities. Therefore, creditworthiness/genuineness of purchases transactions made from the above suppliers remained unexplained and not genuine on the part of the assessee as well as by the suppliers. Hence, variation is proposed to be made on account of the purchase expenditure amounting to Rs.33,86,35,218/-. Accordingly a Show Cause notice dated 09/02/2024 (proposing why an addition of Rs. 33,86,35,218/- should not be made on account of Unaccounted Expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. However, the assessee kept itself as non-responsive, the reason best known to it. The non-responsive behaviour of assessee clearly indicating the fact that it has neither any explanation nor supporting evidences establishing the genuineness of the above purchase transactions. Under the circumstances and the case is being in time-barring of nature, it is concluded that the purchase transactions of Rs.33,86,35,216/- is nothing rather than unaccounted expenditure, which is required to be brought within the ambit of taxation. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 33,86,35,216/- is hereby made on account of unexplained/unaccounted expenditure as per the provisions of section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.”

“6. Decision:

I have gone through the facts of the case and have taken into account materials on record in the case of the appellant, I also found that Ld. A.O had discussed in detail all the issues raised by appellant in grounds of appeal, in the assessment order.

In this context reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT vs. N R Portfolio (P) Ltd, (2014) 206 DLT 97 (DB) (Del) in which Hon'ble Court opined that,

"When an assessee does not produce evidence or tries to avoid appearance before the Assessing Officer, it necessarily creates difficulties and prevents ascertainment of true and correct facts as the Assessing officer is denied advantage of the contention or factual assertion by the assessee before him. In case an assessee deliberately and intentionally fails to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer with the desire to prevent inquiry or investigation. an adverse view should be taken"

Thus, in my considered view, in the absence of any evidence, material or explanation in this regard, and since Ld. A.O had elaborately discussed all the issues raised by appellant, there is absolutely no infirmity in the impugned assessment order or in the conclusion that have been arrived at. Hence, addition made by the AO is confirmed.”

“1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by the Ld AO without any evidence and reasons to the returned income of the assessee, due to which the Assessment Order is bad in law, void-ab-initio and is liable to set aside in full.

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT-A has erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the fact that Ld AO has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee AND has framed assessment order without considering the submissions. Even Ld CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity. HENCE the present case may please be restored to the file of Ld AO to make afresh assessment, after considering the replies / submissions/confirmations as made by assessee.

3.

That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT-A has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without giving any finding on merit which is in violation of the interests of natural justice and therefore, a fair opportunity has not been provided to the assessee in effectively representing its case

4.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT-A has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO as no necessary evidence has been provided causing the addition on account of Purchases also the Ld AO failed to consider that this purchase has caused Sales Revenue, which has been offered for taxation.

5.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT-A has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO as whole of the books has been accepted by Ld AO, nowhere the books have been rejected, and no discrepancy have been found at any point of time.

6.

That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT-A has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO as Ld. AO has made a serious error in making the additions by violating the principles of audialterm pattern i.e. Principles of natural justice, because i.e. Acute shorter Show cause notice was given ii. No fair and Reasonable VC hearing has been provided iii. None of the replies /confirmation/submissions and other material were not considered while framing the assessment order.

7 That the Appellant prays for the grant of permission to add, alter, delete, modify, any or all of the grounds of appeal at any time on or before or during the time of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT.”