https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464449 ITAT MUMBAI (AT) upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that only purchases from one supplier stood proved and deleted the remaining additions for alleged bogus purchases, noting the Department failed to rebut CIT(A)'s factual conclusion and raised grounds mechanically. Because the assessee did not file a cross-appeal, the Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion of the bulk of the addition and sustained the limited addition confirmed by CIT(A). The AO's ex parte penalty was accordingly reduced to the quantum confirmed by CIT(A), and the Revenue's grounds challenging these conclusions were dismissed. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 20:27:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464449 ITAT MUMBAI (AT) upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that only purchases from one supplier stood proved and deleted the remaining additions for alleged bogus purchases, noting the Department failed to rebut CIT(A)'s factual conclusion and raised grounds mechanically. Because the assessee did not file a cross-appeal, the Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion of the bulk of the addition and sustained the limited addition confirmed by CIT(A). The AO's ex parte penalty was accordingly reduced to the quantum confirmed by CIT(A), and the Revenue's grounds challenging these conclusions were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464449