2024 (12) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 22.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as the order dated 31.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) issued under Section 148A (d) of the Act. Additionally, the petitioner also impugns the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The petitioner claims that during the financial year (FY) 2017-18, it had entered into transactions of making purchases for export of garments to Brazil and the same were exported through the export invoices dated 18.09.2017, 27.09.2017, and 28.09.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ord the returns filed in GSTR-2A, which had disclosed inward supplies. The supplies were from the dealers, which were registered under the relevant Goods and Services Tax Act. The Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) of the suppliers also matched with the GSTIN printed on the invoices issued by Balaji Enterprises and another entity namely, Dev Sales Corporation. 6. This court found that the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act did not deal with the aforesaid aspect of the matter. So far as the allegations that the supplier was not found at the given address, this court noticed that there could be several reasons for the same. Accordingly, the AO was directed to conduct the de novo exercise. 7. Thereafter, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 1,44,56,180/-. It was also stated that they have the information that the petitioner had taken an accommodation entry of Rs. 61,34,006/- from one Dev Sales Corporation, which was a sole proprietorship concern of one Suresh Kumar. This was also found to be one of the entities, which is linked with Balaji Enterprises. 10. In view of the above, the AO stated that there was an amount of Rs. 2,05,90,186/-, which appear to have escaped the assessment during AY 2018-19. 11. The petitioner had responded to the said notice reiterating that its purchases were genuine and also provided the documents as have been provided in the earlier round. However, the AO was not persuaded to drop the proceedings and passed the impugned order dated 31.03....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for output sales, and therefore, the same were reflected in the petitioner's GST returns (GSTR-2A) as inward purchases. Similar is the case with the purchases made from Dev Sales Corporation. The AO had noted that the report was received from Investigation Wing [DDIT (Inv) Unit 6(2), New Delhi] in regard to Balaji Enterprises. The AO had extensively set out the finding /information of the said report, which indicated that Balaji Enterprises was not engaged in genuine business activities. A similar information was also received in regard to Dev Sales Corporation. 16. Additionally, the AO had also made telephone call in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the telephone numbers for the said entities (Balaji Enterprise....