TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... merits. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Id. C1T(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal on a bone fide ground. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Id. C1T(A) has erred in not considering the re-opening u/s. 147 of the Act which is bad in law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Id. C1T(A) has erred in holding the addition of purchase aggregating to the tune of Rs. 2,39,148/- as bogus purchase. 5. That the impugned order being contrary to law, evidence and facts of the case may kindly be set aside, amended and modified in the light o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led various details such as details of purchases with names and addresses of suppliers, ledger & copy of the bill of M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd.. The assessee has also submitted Brief note of Business activity, Balance sheet etc and the case was discussed with him. 5. The assessee is an individual and partner in firm M/s. Keshavlal Vajechand which is engaged in the exports of pharmaceuticals products, cotton surgical dressings etc. 6, To prove genuineness of the accommodation entries a notice u/s. 133(6) dated 03.12.2015 was also issued to M/s. Nazar Impex Private Limited. In response to the notice issued M/s. Nazar Impex Private Limited submitted various details related to Shri Dilip K. Kapadia such as copy of ledger accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 154 before the AO and it was hope that the appellant would get the necessary relief before the AO. It is further stated that the rectification application u/s 154 was rejected at the AO level, against which the necessary appeal has been filed with the concerned CIT(A). However, the appellant totally forgot about the filling of appeal against the original assessment order. 5.5 On due perusal and consideration I am of the firm view that the contention of the appellant is completely untenable. I say so because, even if the rectification application was filed, the appellant could not have unilaterally presumed that there would be no need to file the regular appeal before the CIT(A). In fact, the attitude of the appellant is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be not cogent. In these circumstances, when the petition u/s. 154 was rejected assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has treated the reasonable cause for the delay to be not sustainable. In our considered opinion Ld.CIT(A) has completely misled himself by not considering at all the fact that the assessment order passed by the AO was completely devoid of any reasoning whatsoever. Despite the assessee providing all the documentary evidence as required by the AO and the fact that notice u/s. 133(6) having also been complied with. Hence, the reasoning stated by the AO in making the 100% addition is completely bereft of any reasoning whatsoever. He has mentioned that after considering the overall facts and circumstance....