AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) has erred in taxing the income u/s 115BBE of the act instead of taxing the same as business income. 4. It is therefore prayed that the assessment framed u/s 147 rws 144B of the Act may kindly be quashed and/or addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. Information was received from the Investigation Wing that M/s. S.K. Enterprises (Prop. Shahrukhkhan Pathan) is primarily engaged in generating and passing on GST credit to their buyers without any physical movement of goods. During the investigation, it was found that the assessee is one such beneficiary and made purchases of Rs. 13,26,030/- from S.K. Enterprises and filed book GST credit. During the proceedings u/s. 148A of the Act and show cause notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued on 15-03-2022 providing opportunity to the assessee. However, the assessee did not file any submissions to the said notices. Accordingly order u/s. 148A(d)(2) of the act was passed on 30-03-2022 and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31- 03-2022 for making re- assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as income u/s. 69C of the income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee submitted that assessee maintained books of accounts without quantity tally and in Form no. 3CD assessee has also given details of the actual quantity tally as per column no. 35A and B of Form 3CD of tax audit report. But the said contention of the assessee also related to cross examination of proprietor of M/s. S.K. Enterprises in consonance with these documents was rejected by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has made genuine purchase of yarn from M/s. S.K. Enterprises and made the payment through banking channel. The assessee furnished the invoices but did not make full payment to M/s. S.K. Enterprises against the purchase of Rs. 14,84,152/-. The assessment order is not just and proper as the assessee had made the payments and paid the GST with interest and penalty. The ld. A.R. filed following arguments in the form of written submissions:- "5. As stated above, assessee in his statement before the GST authority stated that he received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.................................... 12. The purchases are supported by following papers: i Form No 3CD showing quantitative details, ii Ledger account of the party, iii Purchase Bills obtained from the party, iv. Delivery Challans, v. Ledger account of S.K Enterprise for FY 2018-19, vi. Bank statement of the assessee evidencing the payment 13. As stated above assessee in his statement before the GST authority stated that he received the delivery of the goods but the broker has given the false bills. Therefore, it is clear that assessee has actually purchased the goods and because of the bogus billing, the ITC was reversed and assessee paid the GST with interest and penalty. However, so far as the purchases are concerned the assessee is eligible for deduction of such purchases as the purchases are accounted in the books supported by stock tally Accordingly there is no escapement of the income. 14. Assessee maintains the quantity tally and the details of the quantity of raw material and finished goods were mentioned in Form No. 3CD of Tax Audit Report at column no 35(a) & (b) The assessing officer has not p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer has not supplied the full statement of Madhav Shah. The assessing officer has only supplied the statements recorded by the GST Department However, neither investigation report nor the statements recorded by the Income Tax Department if any was provided to the assessee The assessing officer didn't make the further inquiry Accordingly, the addition made by the assessing officer is not valid in view of the following judgments of the courts: i Andaman Timber Industries vs Comm of Central Excise [Civil Appeal No 4228/2006 (SC)] i. Kishanchand Chellaram v/s CIT [125 ITR 0713 (SC)] iii DCIT vs Mahendra Ambalal Patel (Tax Appeal No. 462 of 1999) (Guj.) iv PCIT Vs Chartered Speed Pvt Ltd [Tax Appeal No. 126 of 2015 with 127 of 2015) (Gu)) v CIT v Ashwani Gupta [322 ITR 0396) (Del) vi HR Mehta v ACIT [289 ITR 0561) (Bom) Wrong invocation of S. 115BBE: Arguments. 19. The addition relates to the disallowance of the purchases Because of the disallowance of the purchases the income from business is increased and therefore S 115BBE cannot be invoked. Even otherwise, the addition for alleged bogus purchases c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch can be seen from page 92 of assessee's bank account, the ledger entry of assessee at page 83 for M/s. S.K. Enterprises. Thus, the ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. At the time of hearing, the assessee has not pressed ground no. 1 and hence the same is dismissed. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee in his written submissions has categorically mentioned that assessee in his statement before the GST authorities stated that he received the delivery of goods but the broker has given the false bills. The submissions of the ld. A.R. that assessee actually purchased the goods and because of the bogus billing, the GST department imposed penalty and the demand of GST with interest. The assessee paid GST with interest alongwith penalty. Thus, the assessee proved his case as per the submissions of the Ld. AR. But the fact remains that the assessee has not given the details of actual movement of purchase of yarns as contemplated by the assessee. The assessee in his submissions despite giving ledger of these delivery challan, ledger account and bank statement has not given the s....