AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16.
As per the information flagged by Risk Management System on Insight Portal and further received from the DDIT/ADIT Investigation Wing, Panipat that the appellant during relevant previous year made bogus transactions by way of sale/purchase amounting to Rs. 93,52,244/- which was not reflecting in the return filed by the assessee for relevant previous years on 29.09.2015, the Ld. AO was of the opinion that the said transaction of Rs. 93,52,244/- remained undisclosed/unexplained by the assessee and since, inspite of due opportunity provided to the assessee, the genuineness of the transaction of sales/purchase made as above by the assessee failed to be proved and thus, the same was added in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act. Infact such order on escaped assessment was finalized upon initiating proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. The same was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us.
Heard the parties, perused the records. It is the case of the assessee that the assessee never had any transaction whatsoever with M/s Agarwal Enterprises which is also evident from the complete details/parawise material supplied by the assessee in response to the notice dated 18.01.2023; such fact has sought to be proved by supporting evidences being the appellants regular book, bank statement, record invoices and confirmation filed during the assessment proceeding as per the annexure to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022. Further that on 18.01.2023 the assessee was directed to provide the details of all the sources of income of the assessee for the year under consideration, the nature of business activity carried out along with the detailed description of different types of business activity carried out during the year under consideration, along with computation of income which was duly furnished by the assessee as per the following details as directed to be furnished:
“a)Provide the copies of ledger confirmation of the above entries
b)Details of the nature of item sold/purchase and its treatment in the books of account
c)Copies of invoices raised by the other entity including copies of sales/purchases order issued by the assessee and copies of any agreement etc.
d)Documentary evidence wrt delivery of the goods sold purchased.
e)Details wrt payment made for such sales/purchases with mode of payment and copies of bank statement with relevant entries highlighted.
f)Details with a copy of the sales/purchases orders/agreements, if any,
g)Stock register summary to verify whether the quantative records for sales/purchases are maintained.
h)Any other evidence the assessee wishes to rely upon to establish the genuineness of these transactions entered into by the Assessee”
It is the further case made out by the assessee that the addition, in any event cannot come under the purview of the provision of Section 69A of the Act. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. AO which stood confirmed by the First Appellate Authority.
After perusal of the documents particularly the order passed by the authorities below, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) made a categorical finding that the appellant failed to provide required details and necessary sufficient documentary evidences in order to explain the genuineness of the transaction of purchase/sale of Rs. 93,52,244/-. In that view of the matter, he did not interfere with the order passed by the Ld. AO.
As it is mentioned in the order impugned that the required details were not filed by the assessee in order to support the case of not having any transaction with M/s Agarwal Enterprises or that the addition is not coming under the purview of the provision of Section 69A of the Act, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, we would like to grant a further opportunity to the assessee to explain the case before the authorities below by adducing sufficient evidence in support of the same. We, thus, set aside the issues to the file of the Ld. AO for consideration of the same afresh upon considering the evidences on record or any other evidence which are required to support the case of the assessee and upon granting a further opportunity of being heard to the assessee to pass a reasoned order. We also make it clear that in the event, the assessee does not cooperate that the Ld. First Appellate Authority, the said authority would be at liberty to proceed and finalize the issue strictly in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.