https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83245 The sales declared by the assessee were treated as bogus, leading to an addition u/s 69A. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO accepted the purchases, inventory, and net profit declared by the assessee. The AO's presumption that the assessee rerouted their own funds was not backed by material evidence. Consequently, the addition was dismissed. Regarding reassessment proceedings, the approval granted u/s 151 was invalid as it was granted for another person's assessment, with the reason merely recorded as 'yes', indicating a mechanical approval. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings itself was held as bad in law, and the assessment made in the assessee's case was set aside. The assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:40:49 +0530 Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:40:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83245 The sales declared by the assessee were treated as bogus, leading to an addition u/s 69A. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO accepted the purchases, inventory, and net profit declared by the assessee. The AO's presumption that the assessee rerouted their own funds was not backed by material evidence. Consequently, the addition was dismissed. Regarding reassessment proceedings, the approval granted u/s 151 was invalid as it was granted for another person's assessment, with the reason merely recorded as 'yes', indicating a mechanical approval. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings itself was held as bad in law, and the assessment made in the assessee's case was set aside. The assessee's appeal was allowed. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:40:49 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83245