Mayank Jain vs NFAU

1.

That the impugned orders of both the Ld. lower authorities are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the principal of natural justice and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and thus are liable to be set aside.

2.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAU has erred in law for non-mentioning the fact in 143(2) notices whether the said notice is limited or complete scrutiny or compulsory manual scrutiny, as mandated in the C.B.D.T. Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017, therefore the impugned notice is invalid and bad in law and concluded assessment proceeding based upon such is ab initio void, ultra vires, hence all the addition deserves to be deleted.

3.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. NFAC has erred in law, by without adjudicating the specific legal issue raised therein, in simply dismissing the Ground No. 2 of the first appeal which read as under, and which thus renders the impugned appeal order a non-speaking order and liable to be set aside qua the ground and issue involved therein and also the addition made by the Ld. NFAU is liable to be deleted in view of the said legal issue. “That the Ld. NFAU in the facts and circumstances of the case has grossly erred in law by making the addition of the differential amount of purchases u/s 69, because addition u/s 69 can be made in respect of value of an unrecorded investment towards which assessee either fails to explain the source or explanation so furnished by him was not found satisfactory, whereas it is trite that purchases or expenditure relating to business activity does falls under the meaning, scope and purview of investment referred u/s 69, thus the addition made in respect of differential of purchases u/s 69 is bad in law and liable to be annulled.”

4.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. NFAC has erred both in law and on facts, in upholding the addition of Rs. Rs. 5,37,345/-assailed in Ground No. 4 stemming from the difference between purchases reported by the assessee and reported from some GST Data, firstly by considering the GST data as sacrosanct and independent which in fact is not correct and accurate always in all cases, secondly by not duly considering the relevant submission made by the assessee during assessment and appeal negating on facts the difference in amounts qua the alleged purchases related to parties referred, thirdly by failure to consider the difference included Rs. 88,800/- qua one party which was remanded back to assessing officer in adjudication of Ground No. 3 and thereby resulted in incongruity, fourthly by failure to consider the specific contention that relied upon GST data was not shared and brought on records rendering assessee berefted with proper opportunity to rebut resulted in impugned addition to be against the principles of natural justice, and thereby wholly and grossly renders both the impugned orders liable to be held bad in law, illegal, void, and set aside with deletion of the impugned addition.

5.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

1.

“That the impugned orders of both the Ld. lower authorities are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the principal of natural justice and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and thus are liable to be set aside.

2.

That on the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. NFAC has erred in law, in upholding the impugned penalty levied by the Ld. NFAU and dismissing the Ground Nos. 2,3,4 of the penalty appeal for the reason that the quantum addition is upheld and sustained by the Ld. NFAC in the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee wherein the assessee preferred similar grounds and by further stating that the levying of penalty is automatic upon addition u/s 69, and thereby failed to adjudicate penalty independently of addition which makes the impugned penalty order biased, invalid, mechanical and renders the impugned penalty order liable to be set aside and the impugned penalty liable to be deleted.

3.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC has erred in law in dismissing Ground No. 5, which read as under, without adjudicating the specific legal issue raised therein which renders the impugned penalty order liable to be set aside and the impugned penalty liable to be deleted.

"5.

That in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the Ld. NFAU has erred in law for imposing penalty u/s 271AAC(1), because it is a trite no penalty can be levied upon any addition which is either without any corroborative and tangible material to reasonably establish evasion of tax or where such an addition is made upon estimations or ad-hoc addition/disallowance, whereas in the present case the addition made is wholly and entirely without any such tangible material and made on surmises by treating as income the difference in respect of purchase amount in GST-Data with ITRData, therefore penalty imposed is unsustainable and bad in law thus deserves to be deleted."

4.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

ITA No. 7968/DEL/2025 AY 2021-22:

1.

“That the impugned orders of both the Ld. lower authorities are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the principal of natural justice and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and thus are liable to be set aside.

2.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAU has erred in law for non-mentioning the fact in 143(2) notices whether the said notice is limited or complete scrutiny or compulsory manual scrutiny, as mandated in the C.B.D.T. Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017, therefore the impugned notice is invalid and bad in law and concluded assessment proceeding based upon such is ab initio void, ultra vires, hence all the addition deserves to be deleted.

3.

That in the facts and circumstance of the case Ld. NFAC while dismissing Ground No. 5 also erred in law in upholding the illegal addition by the Ld. NFAU u/s 69C in respect of purchases disallowed, whereas all the purchase were duly accounted for by the assessee in his audited books of accounts and no purchases found unaccounted and therefore such disallowance cannot be added u/s 69C rendering the said addition u/s 69C beyond its scope, bad in law and liable to be deleted.

4.

That in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. NFAC has erred in law for dismissing all the additional evidences, whereas additional consisting medical records were accepted by Ld. NFAC in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for failure to reply the statutory notices and whereas the additional evidences consisting of previous assessment orders passed in pursuant to assessments conducted for reasons similar and identical to present assessment i.e. verification of purchases and thus have a persuasive value and binding precedent in deciding the addition of purchases.

5.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC has failed to understand that, since assessee was severally affected with his own medical issues due to slip disk and diabetes and also with the ill health ofhis father caused due to kidney failure who also was in fact looking after the business operations and tax compliances of assessee's firm, the assessee could not make complete reply to enquiry notices and also could not make reply to SCN u/s 144 during assessment proceedings and therefore in these facts and circumstances assessee was effectively devoid of reasonable opportunity to present his case rendering both the lower orders liable to be set aside.

6.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC while dealing with Ground No. 3, failed to consider and adjudicate upon the issue of short opportunity of only two days provided to assessee to make reply against the SCN u/s 144 and therefore the impugned assessment order is bad in law, which makes the dismissal of Ground No. 3 bereft of any reason and thus renders the impugned appeal order liable to be set aside.

7.

That on the facts and circumstance of the case, both the lower authorities have grossly erred in law by making and upholding respectively, disallowance of entire purchases by solely relying upon information received by him and without conducting any independent verification towards accuracy, correctness and veracity thereof. The Ld. NFAC while adjudicating Ground No. 4 further erred in upholding the disallowance by dis-crediting the purchase registers, GST returns, book entries etc. where the identity and existence of parties remained unverified, whereas assessee cannot be fastened with liability if any vendor party who is not in his control does not reply and where no infirmity as to the accounts of assessee were found. In the aforesaid circumstances both the impugned assessment and adjudication are liable to be held erroneous, bad in law, illegal rendering the addition liable to be deleted.

8.

That on the facts and circumstance of the case Ld. NFAC while dismissing Ground No. 6 erred in law in upholding the invalid addition of entire purchases made by the Ld. NFAU by alleging such purchases to be bogus, despite that the Ld. NFAU accepted the amount of corresponding sales, opening and closing stock emanating from the very said alleged purchases pertaining to duly disclosed and registered trading business carried on by the assessee and hence making addition of the whole of purchases is wholly wrong, incorrect, perverse and against the trite law which renders the addition liable to be deleted.

9.

That on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. NFAC while dismissing the ground no. 7 has erred in law in upholding the addition of whole of alleged purchases made by the Ld. NFAU whereas the addition was invalid on twin counts, firstly treating all purchases as bogus by relying upon one and only reply made by one of the suppliers and secondly without affording opportunity to the assessee to counter and Ld. NFAC is further erroneous in law in dismissing the contention of the assessee that relying on a third statement without cross examining is bad in law, these grossly renders both the impugned lower authority orders bad in law and the impugned addition liable to be deleted, being made at the back of the assessee.

10.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”