TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdiction of ld. AO, proceedings u/s. 148 on the ground that approval granted u/s. 151 is mechanical and ld. AO has not carried out any independent enquiry before the issue of notice u/s. 148. The relevant grounds raised by the assessee reads as under:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld AO has erred failed in not issuing the copy of the order passed by the Pr. CCIT/CCIT/PT CIT/CIT for change of jurisdiction from AO Wd. 25(2)(4), Mumbai to AO Wd. 32(3)(1), Mumbai 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred/failed to issue the notice under sec 129 required to be issue for a change in incumbency from AO Shri Hemant Kumar to AO Shri Kundan Kumar 3. On the facts and circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. AO under sec. 143(3) without considering the material evidence placed before him and placing undue insistence on technicalities for production of lorry receipt, delivery challan, etc, and justifying the addition of Rs. 7,544,156/- in respect of bogus/hawala purchases @ 15% which was derived on a thumb rule basis without application of scientific methods and due consideration of relevant facts peculiar to the case even when the corresponding sales is accepted as being genuine and not bogus If corresponding sales wasn't treated bogus and considered genuine, how purchases could be treated bogus to justify addition is not answered both by the Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) 9. The Ld. AO erred in levying of interest under sec 234A on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s found that assessee had claimed a purchased of goods worth Rs. 50294375/- from parties and debited the same in the Trading and P&L A/c of the concern. TIN No. Name of the Party Amount 27390358779V SHRADHA SABURI MERCHANTS LTD 22822338 27490213709V SAI KRIPA METALLIC TRADECOM LTD 27472037 50294375 In view of detailed enquines made by the Investigation wing of Mumbai and Sales Tox Department it is evident that the assessee took bogus bills worth Rs. 50294375/- at least from above parties to inflate its purchases". 4. The ld. AO noted that assessee has not raised any objection against the reopening and accordingly, he proceeded to decide on merits. Before the ld. AO, assessee has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer to other which is situated in the same city. 6. We agree with the contention of the ld. DR that once the order of transfer u/s 127 has been passed by the competent authority transferring the case from one AO to another within the same city, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given and neither assessee has ever raised this objection that no order u/s. 127 has been passed. Accordingly the contention and ground raised by the assessee is rejected. 7. Coming to his second objection that the ld. AO has failed to issue notice u/s. 129 for change of incumbency from AO Shri Hemant Gaikwad to AO Shri Kundan Kumar. The ld. DR has pointed out that notice u/s. 129 has been issued to the assessee by the second AO who has pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, from the perusal of the reasons it is seen that there was a specific information that assessee has purchased goods from the parties who were found to be providing bogus bills. The assessee in the books of accounts has debited the purchase made from these parties and therefore, prima facie, there was a reason to believe that these might be bogus purchases. Further, even during the course of assessment proceedings, these parties were untraceable in the enquiry conducted u/s. 133(6) and assessee also could not produce these parties, thus it cannot be held that reasons were not based on any tangible material. Therefore, it cannot be held that reasons recorded by the ld. AO is merely a borrowed satisfaction. Accordingly, ground No.4 is also....