TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 45,75,500/- without mentioning the section under which disallowance has been made under the provisions of income tax act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 45,75,500/- made on account of bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was made mechanically without appreciating the evidences furnished by the assessee and also without rejecting the books of account. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.1,2 & 3 above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that based on the judicial dictum at best only a percentage of the alleged bogus purchases could have been disallowed and not the entire sum of Rs. 45,75,500/- 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing the order against the deceased person, who had expired on 16.02.2023 and that too without bringing Legal Representative (LR) on record, as such, the order as passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is non est and therefore be quashed, more so when the LR was registered on income ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the business of rice milling had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 28.11.2014, declaring an income of Rs. 6,87,920/-. The A.O based on information that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from M/s. Maa Sharda Process i.e. a tainted party, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income fort the subject year i.e AY 2041-15 on 01.07.2021 declaring an income of Rs. 6,87,920/-. 6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O called upon the assessee to put forth his explanation substantiating the authenticity of the purchases of Rs. 45,75,500/- that was claimed to have been made from M/s. Maa Sarada Process. As the assessee failed to substantiate the authenticity of the subject purchase transactions, therefore, the A.O made an addition of Rs. 45,75,500/-. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22.03.2022 after making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 52,63,420/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that it is one issued under section 153A of the Act cannot vitiate the assessment proceedings. 8.2 In the instant case, appellant was well communicated to the issue on which the AO was proposing the disallowance of bogus purchases being unexplained expenditure. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and the above mentioned judicial pronouncement, the appellant's contention can not be accepted and accordingly this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed. Ground No 3: 11.1 This ground of appeal filed by the appellant is in regard to not allowing proper opportunity. During the course of the appellate proceeding, the AO allowed more than sufficient opportunities to submit the called details. Finally AO issued show cause notice/draft assessment order on 14.03.2022 fixing the hearing on 17.03.2022 to submit the called details. However the appellant has claimed that adjournment letter was filed before the AD seeking time till 23.03.2022 for which AO did not put any reply. Further the AO passed the final assessment order on 22.03.2022. However, It shall also be noted that the issue on which scrutiny assessment initiated was the same on which addition wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the appellant's contention that the amount should be restricted to a reasonable basis, it shall be noted that the transaction involved is determined as Bogus purchase and restricting the addition on percentage basis or any other measure will not do justice to the facts of the case, In this regard, reference is invited on the Hon'ble High Court Of Gujarat's decision in the case of N.K Industries Ltd. v. Deputy commissioner of Income-tax Tax Appeal Nos. 240 TO 242. 260 & 261 OF 2003 June 20, 2016 wherein if was decided that the restricting the disallowance on percentage basis in the case of bogus transaction in not correct. Relevant portion of the same is re-produced as under: 5. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to 25% ie. Ra. 3 crores out of the addition of Rs.11.99 crores made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has decided the issue regarding bogus purchases relying on the decision of the Rajasthan High court in the case of Indian Woollen Carpet Factory v. ITAT [2003] 260....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leave to urge, add, amend, alter, enlarge, modify, substitute, delete any of the ground/ grounds and to adduce fresh evidence at the time of hearing of appeal, however no other ground has been urged at the time of appeal hearing nor altered any grounds of appeal, hence no separate adjudication is required for this ground of appeal. 16. In the result, the Appellant's appeal for the AY 2014-15 is hereby dismissed." 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 10. Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ld. AR for the assessee, at the threshold, submitted that the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) dated 13.09.2024 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee, viz. Shri. Kailash Chandra Agrawal had expired on 16.02.2023, therefore, the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) in h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. (2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section-147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),- (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and may be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which it stood on the date of the death of the deceased; (b) any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative; and (c) all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (3) The legal representative of the deceased shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be an assessee. (4) Every legal representative shall be personally liable for any tax payable by him in his capacity as legal representative if, while his liability fo....