2025 (8) TMI 680

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 17.10.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the I.d. First Appellate Authority (FAA), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, err....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ous judicial precedents." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. of impugned addition of Rs.21,74,030/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of The Income Tax Act. 1961". 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 144. The assessing officer made addition on account of bogus purchases shown from fictitious entities which were providing bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. The assessing officer disallowed 100% of purchase expenses. The assessing officer also made addition under section 68 of Rs. 21,74,030/- by disallowing sundry creditors. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of assessing officer in a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eficiaries from Nisha Enterprise and Payal Enterprise, which were identified as bogus entry provider. The assessing officer recorded that despite giving various notices, the assessee failed to substantiate purchases from such parties and in absence of any evidence; he disallowed 100% purchases from both the parties. The assessing officer also noted that assessee has shown sundry creditors of Rs. 2....