MPCL Industries Ltd. vs The DCIT, Circle 17(2)

“1.

That on the facts and in law, the Assessment order dt. 10.12.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. Assessing Officer" or "Ld. A.O."] u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)"] vide order dt. 23.07.2025 is bad at law & facts and is void ab initio.

2.

That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), erred in endorsing the Ld. Assessing Officer exercising the jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act.

2.1

That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that:

a)

on perusal of reason recorded for issue of notice u/s 148, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has exercised his authority according to its own discretion."

b)

The information available with the Assessing Officer was sufficient for recording of satisfaction that income has escaped the assessment for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and does not require any independent inquiry.

c)

There is no anomaly to reopen the case for reassessment as income has escaped the assessment.

2.2.

That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), erred in not considered the Appellant objections/ground of appeal that Ld. AO did not a) Supplying the copy of information relied upon and b) Provided the copy of approval granted by Pr. CIT, New Delhi.

3.

That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding addition to the tune of Rs. 1,78,23,200/- made by the Ld. Assessing officer on account accommodation entries received from M/s Radhey Shyam Murari Lal and Co. and M/s Shree Shyam Overseas.

3.1

That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erroneously observed / holding the following which is against the facts on record:

a)

The Appellant have not made any effort to justify the sales transactions with the documents

b)

It was duty of the Appellant to prove the sales with quantitative tally with purchases than there shall not be any doubt in respect of purchases, but in assessment proceedings as well as in appellate proceedings the appellant failed to explain the sales.

c)

The Appellant had not filed date-wise, truck-wise and challan-wise details of supply etc. the Appellant had also not able to explain that from which parties they have made purchases for sale of these items in which they never transacted.

d)

The Appellant had neither produced stock register nor were purchases соrelated with the sales disclosed in the books

e)

The Appellant have not explained the sales with supporting documents (list of documents compiled by the Id. CIT(A) in para no 7.7), thus the Appellant have failed to discharge the onus to prove this issue i.e. genuineness of sales.

4.

That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred upholding the levying the interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act.

5.

All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to others. That the appellant carves the right to add, modify, amend and delete the grounds of appeal during the course of the hearing.”