TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y filing an application under rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (in short "the Rules") has raised various grounds including challenging the approval granted u/s 151(i) of the Act being erroneous in view of the recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70(SC). 3. The Assessing Officer (in short "AO") in consequence to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment/order dated 04.05.2022 passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal {civil appeal no.3005 of 2022}, has issued a notice u/s 148(A)(b) of the Act on dated 28.07.2022 after getting sanction/approval dated 28-07-2022 u/s 151 of the Act from the Ld. PCIT (Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if the assessment is reopened after elapsing of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year then the specified authority for granting sanction for issue of notice u/s 148 & 148A would be - a Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or (iii) where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General then Chief Commissioner or Director General would be the competent authority. 5. Here in the instant case, admittedly the assessment was reopened after elapsing of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore the approval of either of specified authorities as specified in sub clause (ii) of section 151 was required to be taken, which admittedly has not been taken but the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poration and out of several bills only one bill was alleged as non-genuine, which was not logical. The assessee was maintaining proper stock register in which the purchases, issue, receipt and sales were duly recorded and nothing adverse was observed by the AO regarding the same. The supplier had also duly confirmed the transactions. The statement made by the supplier Sh. Bijal Ashok Shah, Prop. M/s Swastic Corporation, was not only immediately retracted after the Survey but he also filed an affidavit before the AO duly confirming of having actually sold and having delivered the goods. Thus, the Ld CIT(A) held that there was no basis to consider the purchases made as bogus and accordingly deleted the addition. 9.6 The facts in the presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purchase consideration has come back to the assessee in cash, (e) the sales out of purchases have been accepted & (f) the supplier has accounted for the purchases made by the assessee and paid taxes thereon. 9.8 In the present case also the purchase bills, ledger confirmation, bank statements, audited financial statements have been duly furnished before the AO. The payments have been made through banking channels. The supplier M/s Swastic Corporation has duly confirmed the transactions. Also, there is no evidence on record to prove that the purchase consideration has come back to the assessee in cash. Moreover, the AO has not cast any doubt over the sales made. 9.9 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judici....