TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Years (AYs) 2020-21 and 2021-22. 2. The Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal:- ITA No. 1888/Ahd/2024 "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 59,08,859/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained investment in stock ignoring the seized documents and statement recorded during search/post-search proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Addition of Rs. 11,16,31,500/- on account of Estimation of Gross Profit on unaccounted purchase ignoring the seized documents and statement recorded during search/post-search proceedings. 3. The Revenue craves leave to add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carries on the business of ManekchandGutkha on wholesale basis. Total Sixteen premises of Shri MustufamiyanHussenmiyan Shaikh, their related entities as well as their family members were covered under Section 132 of the Act in the search action. During the search & seizure action, the residential premises of assessee, was also covered u/s 132 of the Act and warrant of authorization u/s 132 of the Act was issued in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 04.07.2022, and the assessee filed return of income in response to the notice on 22.10.2022 declaring total income at Rs. 1,41,39,170/-. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.2.2023 for A.Y. 2020-21 and notice u/s 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 59,08,859/- as unaccounted investment of the assessee in purchases of the stock and treated the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs. 11,16,31,500/- as difference in Gross profit of the assessee on unaccounted purchase. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) ignored the statements and the documents seized by the Department during the search which clearly states that there was a transactions of sales with M/s Mustufa Sales Agency and M/s Sojas Corporation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Mustufa Sales Agency and M/s Sojas Corporation but Shri RashminMajithia upon being confronted on 03.02.2022 on this loose paper has deposed that the papers are not related to any of his business group. Noting on third party papers are neither in the handwriting of assessee or containing anything as belonging to the assessee. Mayank Khatri is not assessee's employee and without allowing cross-examination, no cognizance should be taken for those documents. The assessee denied having entered into any transactions for purchase of goods. Assessee again requested for cross-examination which was summarily rejected by the A.O. and the Assessing Officer relied upon the statement of Mayank Khatri. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The A.O. has unreasonably invoked provision of Section 145 of the Act merely for the sake of making unfair addition. The A.O. has not mentioned any other cogent reason which could support the rejection of books. The A.O. has issued identical notices on these pages in the case of Mohammed Asad Faridmiya Shaikh, Faridmiya Hussainmiya Saikh and details/evidences of particular product sold by Zen Group, its exact quantity, precise rate, actual mode of transaction, place of delivery and acceptance of delivery of alleged purchases made and name of the persons, place of making payment and person receiving alleged payment are not brought on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has categorically held that no details are mentioned in the seiz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee during the assessment proceedings produced copy of ledger account from where the assessee demonstrated that the assessee has regular transactions of purchases from Zen Group and all the transactions of sales and purchase have been duly recorded in the regular books of accounts. While rejecting the books of account, the Assessing Officer has not followed the basis given under provisions of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but only rejected the said books on the ground that no record of cash sales viz. name of the party, contract no., exact amounts were maintained by the assessee as DSR after making entries in tally software and the same was destroyed on daily basis. The Assessing Officer has not given any finding as to on....