TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 1129, 1132 and 1133/Kol/2018 for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in quashing the order passed by the PCIT-10, Kolkata u/s. 263 of the Act ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in ignoring the fact that as per section 69C of the Act, the Assessing Officer should have to make a disallowance of the entire fictitious purchases made through accommodation bills and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) who, in turn, vide letter dated 23rd December, 2013 communicated the details of the fictitious purchases and the name of the assessee was found in the list as a beneficiary of such accommodation bills. After following the due procedure and discussing the case with the various representatives of the assessee, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment by order dated 28th March, 2016 pointed out that the only inference can be drawn is that the assessee did not purchase from the parties mentioned in the said bill and at the same time the assessee did purchase goods from some other suppliers may be without the bill. Therefore, the purchase rate mentioned by the assessee was rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 of the Act. The averments contained in the show-cause notice are as follows :- ".....On examination of your assessment records for the above mentioned assessment year., it appears prima facie that there was failure on the part of the A.O. to assess the income correctly and as such the instant order u/s 143(3)/147 dated 28.03.2016 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the ambit of sec. 263 of the Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961. 3.On examination of your assessment records for the above mentioned assessment year, it is observed that your case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, on 30/03/2015 on the basis of incriminating information received by the AO. In the said assessment order it was established t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roved beyond doubt that the alleged purchase claimed by the assessee against the parties were bogus. The PCIT referred to Section 69C of the Act and pointed out that once it is established that the expenditure is unexplained/bogus, the entire amount of bogus expenditure is to be added to the total income of the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.K.Proteins Vs. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195(SC). Further, the PCIT pointed out that the assessment officer had to examine each and every transaction and finally assess the correct income of the assessee. However, the assessing officer without arriving at any logical conclusion and without conducting any inquiry made a disallowance only to the extent of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills etc. were filed in the form of a paper book and on facts the Court found that inquiry was conducted by the assessing officer and, therefore, the Commissioner was wrong in exercising his power under Section 263 of the Act. The facts as mentioned in the said judgment had been quoted by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of its order. Reading of the said order will clearly show that the said decision could not have been applied to the assessee's case. The decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Subarna Rice Mill (supra) also is distinguishable on facts as the source from where the purchases were made was identified. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that when the assessing officer gave an opportunity to the assessee to explain th....