2025 (9) TMI 643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of the allegation that the assessee had claimed purchases from Kanheya Exports which was not a genuine entity. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished audited books of account, ledger accounts, purchase bills, bank statement and certificate from the auditor. The Assessing Officer also conducted physical verification ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued that the reliance on the decision of NK Protein is not entirely correct and that the PCIT failed to point out enquiry not conducted by the AO. The ld AR relied on the decision taken by hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200; Malabar Industrial Co Ltd 243ITR 83 Hon'ble Rajkot ITAT Bench in the case of Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara vs PCIT, ITA 59/RJT/2022 (dated 22.3.2023) and Vijuba Jutubha Jadeja vs PCIT, ITA 105/RJT/2022 (dated 2.8.2023). 8. Per contra the ld DR heavily relied on the order of the PCIT. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record. All that we have to see is whether the Assessing Officer has examined the issues considered by the PCIT in holding that the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as been correctly made u/s 37 by AO. Our views are fortified by Hon'ble Rajkot ITAT Bench in the case of Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara vs PCIT, ITA 59/RJT/2022 (dated 22.3.2023) and Vijuba Jutubha Jadeja vs PCIT, ITA 105/RJT/2022 (dated 2.8.2023) where it was held that if purchase is held to be bogus then it is case of "no expense" and in such a position, disallowance cannot be u/s 69C of the Act. 12. We also find that the PCIT's observation that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly ignored to apply ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in c/o NK Proteins Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC) is not valid. The said decision was a non-speaking order where the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP filed by the assessee against the order....