Petitioner fails to prove supplier creditworthiness despite producing purchase documents, reassessment under section 147 upheld

Delhi HC dismissed the petition challenging reopening of assessment u/s 147. The tax department received information from its investigation wing that two suppliers from whom petitioner availed supplies were non-existent entities. Despite petitioner producing documents supporting genuine purchases, it failed to establish the creditworthiness or substance of the suppliers. The court held that AO had sufficient grounds suggesting income escaped assessment for AY 2020-21, declining to adjudicate on merits as that falls within reassessment proceedings' scope.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act for AY 2020-2021 based on alleged bogus purchases from non-existent entities.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged an order dated 12.04.2024 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2020-2021. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice proposing reassessment based on alleged bogus purchases of &8377;22,12,474/- from M/s S.P. Trading and &8377;87,37,811/- from M/s N.B. Agency. The investigation wing reported these entities as non-existent. The petitioner responded with supporting documents but failed to establish the creditworthiness or existence of the suppliers.

2. The AO, after considering the petitioner's response, issued the impugned order under Section 148 of the Act, alleging the purchases were sham transactions. The AO found the entities to be paper entities providing accommodation entries. The AO concluded that the income of &8377;1,09,50,285/- had escaped assessment, justifying the reopening of the assessment for AY 2020-2021.

3. The Court cited the case law of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) emphasizing that at the stage of issuing a notice under Section 148, the AO only needs to have grounds to believe income has escaped assessment, not conclusively establish it. The Court noted the principle applies post-amendment of the Act.

4. Despite the petitioner's submission of documents supporting genuine purchases, the lack of evidence regarding the creditworthiness or substance of the suppliers was a crucial factor. The Court held that the AO had sufficient grounds to suggest the petitioner's income had escaped assessment for AY 2020-2021, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

5. The Court clarified that the decision did not delve into the merits of the allegations, as that falls within the AO's jurisdiction during reassessment. The dismissal of the petition implied the AO had reasonable grounds to proceed with the reassessment, highlighting the importance of substantiating transactions and entities' credibility in tax matters.

---