2025 (9) TMI 611

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 3,41,66,470/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had received an information that the assessee was a beneficiary of transaction of Rs. 116,01,95,815/- in the form of bogus sales made to M/s. Pankaj Metals. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. In the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding transaction of Rs. 116,01,95,815. Therefore, the entire sale proceeds were treated as accommodation entry and added under Section 68 of the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... during the year under consideration. It is clear that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the genuineness of transaction with corroborative evidences but the assessee has failed to do so. The assessee has also failed to provide adequate corroborative evidence to substantiate the legitimacy of the purchase. (iii) Regarding filing of MVAT along with transaction register by the assessee is concerned, it is submitted that the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the same and delivery of material." 5. Shri Alpesh Parmar, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the sale transactions made by the assessee to M/s. Pankaj Metals was paper transaction, which was apparent from the contradictory statement of the Director of M/s Pankaj Metals. He ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... And after passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 24.08.2022, another notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the AO on 24.08.2022. According to the Ld. AR, the first notice dated 25.06.2021 was beyond the period of three years from the end of relevant A.Y. whereas the second notice dated 24.08.2022 was beyond the period of six years from the relevant A.Y. and none of the notices were valid. In this regard, he relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. CBDT, 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC) and also on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel vs. ACIT, 176 taxmann.com 25 (Guj). 7. We have carefully considered the rival subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.06.2021." [Emphasis supplied.] 7.1 It was thus held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for the A.Y. 2015-16 all the notices issued on or after 1st April 2021 was required to withdrawn. In the present case, the first notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25.06.2021, which was after 1st April, 2021, and was required to be dropped. Therefore, the said notice is held as invalid. 7.2 The second notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 24.08.2022 was beyond th....