TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken by the Appellant are genuine and duly supported by the evidences furnished during the course of assessment. 3. Ld. AO and CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts without appreciating the sales can-not be treated as accommodation entry where the purchase and inventory records are duly audited and accepted by Ld. AO / CIT(A) to be genuine. 4. Ld. AO and CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts without appreciating the fact that sales to specific parties is supported by documentary evidences and books of accounts are duly audited by chartered accountant without any adverse remarks. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act is invalid and bad in law as the same has been passed without providing opportunity of cross examination of the concerned persons in whose case search operations were carried out. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law while stating that no response was received in response to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, while in facts the response was duly filed and also acknowledg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uise of legitimate transactions. The assessee was identified as one such beneficiary, having allegedly received accommodation entries amounting to Rs.1,16,32,855/- during the Financial Year 2017-18 under the heads of transactions with the aforementioned entities. During assessment proceedings, the assessee expressed difficulty in verifying the alleged transactions in the absence of specific details such as cheque numbers and transaction dates. The assessee also raised objections about not having been provided with the statement of Mr. Tibrewal and sought an opportunity for cross-examination. The Department responded by issuing another notice u/s 142(1) on 22.02.2023, enclosing the relevant extract from the statement recorded under section 132(4) of Mr. Tibrewal, wherein he admitted to the accommodation entry business and named the assessee as one of the beneficiaries. The Assessing Officer noted that despite this, no further substantive reply was submitted by the assessee. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to Mr. Sanjay Tibrewal, Jigna Shah, and Alpaben Shah, but no replies were received from Jigna Shah or Alpaben Shah, and the rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s like Ganpati Textiles, Hanuman Fabrics, and Narayan & Co. The assessee was specifically named as a beneficiary of such entries during the impugned assessment year. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee could not furnish sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the sales made to these parties during assessment or appellate proceedings. Merely submitting ledger extracts without supporting documents was held by CIT(Appeals) to be inadequate. The CIT(A) also rejected the assessee's argument regarding the denial of cross-examination, holding that such a right is not absolute and depends on the context of the case. Given the lack of documentary evidence, failure to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the parties, and the findings of the Investigation Wing, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.1,16,32,855/- as unexplained money under Section 69A and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a trader in clothes and does not sell in cash. The assessee had submitted list of parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer was following the view that sum received from first purchaser was unaccounted income of assessee and made the addition. The Gujarat High Court held that since documents seized during search indicated receipt of money from purchasers and repayment by assessee at different dates and assessee had disclosed short term capital gain on entire amount, any attempt on part of Revenue to tax said amount once again would amount to double taxation. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax -Central Ludhiana vs. Garg Acrylics Ltd. [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1061 (Delhi)/[2025] 305 Taxman 285 (Delhi)/[2025] 476 ITR 737 (Delhi)[22-05- 2025], during the relevant year, Assessing Officer made an addition to assessee's income based on difference between receipts from alleged bogus sales and payments towards bogus purchases, treating net amount as undisclosed income. In appeal, Delhi High Court noted that sales were already reflected in revenue disclosed by assessee and payments represented outflow on account of purchases. Thus, net revenue (sales minus purchases) was already included in declared income. Therefore, in light of the above facts, at best, Assessing Officer could have ....