TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tively passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2011-2012 & 2013-14. First, we take up the assessee's appeal in ITA No.1622/Ahd/2019 for AY 2011-12. ITA No.1622/Ahd/2019 2. The assessee, in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of notice issued u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,88,500/- made by assessing officer by treating the purchases made by the assessee as bogus, without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee for the assessment year under consideration had escaped assessment. He further noted that though, the earlier assessment in this case was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act and four years had passed from the end of the relevant assessment year, however, in this case, the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of his income. He accordingly, reopened the assessment and in the assessment proceedings, the AO treated the aforesaid purchases from two parties as bogus and estimated the escapement of income to the extent of 12.50% of the said alleged bogus purchases and made impugned addition of Rs. 34,17,260/-. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) though, confirmed the addition, however, restricted the same to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment proceedings or thereafter. Therefore, any adjudication regarding the validity of reopening of assessment on this issue, at his stage, is not possible for want of exact and proper factual information. However, the fact on the record is that the alleged letter was sent by the office of the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai on 14/03/2014 or a few days thereafter which might have been received the AO of the assessee in the month/months of March - April-2014. However, the AO of the assessee kept mum on the said information for four years. After passing of four years, the assessment was re-opened in the case of the assessee on 28/03/2018. Therefore, the aforesaid re-opening of the assessment is hit by the first proviso to section 147 of the Act, as ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifically put a query to the Ld.DR as to whether as per the legal requirement, the assessee was supposed to file along with return of income any other information/documents apart from that have been filed by the assessee along with return of income. He however, could not point out any such specific requirement, but, insisted that the aforesaid information as narrated in above points (a) to (d), was necessary for the just and correct assessment of income of the assessee. However, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had duly disclosed all the material information and particulars of income, which as per law, the assessee was required to disclose. The assessee as per the requirement of law, was not supposed to disclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a perusal of which reveals that the AO has already examined the issue of low Gross Profit (GP) rate and made an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- into the income of the assessee and thus, the issue of alleged bogus purchases, was under the circumstances, was examined by the AO. Further, the said addition made on account of low GP rate was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A), however the same stood deleted by the ITAT in further appeal. Therefore, the aforesaid issue of low GP having been examined during the original assessment proceedings, it cannot be said that the assessee had not furnished the requisite particulars which he was supposed to furnish for the purpose of assessment of true and correct income of the assessee. 10. We find force in the conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion received from Investigation Wing for four years and did not make any effort to verify the aforesaid information and re-open the assessment. After the lapse of four years, the case of the assessee is hit by proviso to section 147 of the Act, and the assessment cannot be reopened unless the conditions stipulated in the first proviso to section 147 of the Act are satisfied. However, such conditions have not been satisfied in this case. In view of this, re-opening of the assessment, in this case, is bad in law and subsequent assessment framed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act is also bad in law and the same is hereby quashed. 11. Before parting, it is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has raised another legal ground that, in this cas....