AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case, the ITAT Registry has reported a delay of 20 days. The Ld. DR made an oral submission at the Bar that the delay happened due to some gap in inter-office communication. He prayed for condonation of the same.
Considering the circumstances narrated by the Ld. DR, we deem it fit to condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication.
This appeal arises from order dated 30.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.
In this case, the Ld. AO vide order dated 25.12.2019, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2019 on account of a deposit of cash amounting to Rs.30,44,500/- in the bank account of the assessee and also a purchase of motor vehicle worth Rs.22,03,833/-. There was, additionally, information regarding the transaction of Rs.2.82 crores involving the assessee. It is seen from the Ld. AO’s order that some bills were submitted by the assessee in proof of the bona fides of the said transaction but the same was not deemed sufficient enough for escaping the addition of Rs.2.82 crores as alleged bogus purchases.
The assessee approached the CIT(A) where he could succeed on several counts including on the ground of assumption of jurisdiction, leading to the present appeal.
The Revenue has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) on several counts, mainly averring that the suspicious transaction amounting to Rs.2.82 crores was not suitably explained by the assessee and therefore the first appellate order is perverse.
Before us the Ld. DR took us through the Ld. AO’s order, especially page 2 para 3. It was the submission that the assessee never submitted any cogent evidence in support of his claim that the amount of Rs.2.82 crores was justified and duly disclosed by the assessee in his return.
The Ld. AR, on the other hand, relied on the impugned order and brought to our notice para 6.6 at page 126 of the impugned order to canvass the point that the assessee had submitted the necessary evidences but the Ld. AO never indicated as to how such evidences were insufficient.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. AO has given a very cryptic finding and has not even once mentioned in what way the evidence supplied by the assessee was inadequate. We also find that there is a recording of fact in the impugned order at para 6.6 on page 126 as under:
“6.6It is seen that the AO made the addition solely based on report of the investigation wing. The AO did not bring any evidence on record to establish that the transaction with the impugned party was bogus. There is no reference for any enquiries conducted by the AO either by issue notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 or summons u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The appellant submitted copies of bills etc. before the AO. However, the AO did not make any attempt to verify its correctness/genuineness. There is no evidence on record to establish that the impugned transaction was not genuine.
6.7In absence of any evidence on record to establish that the impugned transaction was bogus, the additions so made by the AO stands deleted.”
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the Ld. AO has been lax in his responsibilities in terms of carrying out due investigations and enquiries in this case. This failing cannot be cured at this stage and we are constrained to rely on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) given in para 6.6 (supra), to dismiss the appeal of Revenue.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.