TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 24.9.2021 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] was dismissed. 2. The assessee is in appeal raising the following grounds of appeal:- "General Ground 1. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as `AO') has erred in passing the order under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') in the manner passed by him and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as `CIT(A)'] has erred in confirming the said order. The said orders being bad in law are liable to be quashed. Grounds relating to addition under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Appellant without appreciating the fact that the same is a commercial arrangement between the parties. 8. The learned AO has erred in withholding the information available with him on the basis of which it was alleged that the Appellant was a beneficiary of bogus GST billing. The absence of an opportunity for the Appellant to review such information is against principles of natural justice. 9. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the addition under section 69C amounting to Rs. 18,69,992 is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 10. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO and the learned CIT(A) ought to have restricted the addition to the extent of gross profit earned by the Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the bogus GST billing. Assessee was questioned on this and assessee submitted a copy of balance sheet, profit & loss a/c, bank statement, GST return, month-wise purchase and sale invoices, e-waybills, etc. 4. The ld. AO noted that assessee has shown purchase of Rs. 2,01,15,217 wherein assessee has purchased shirting and suiting from one, M/s. Manjunatha Marketing on 28.9.2017 for Rs. 3,04,731. However, on verification of GST portal, it was found that this entity is dealing in building stone, natural stone tiles and pigments. The invoices produced by the assessee of the above party shows that there is purchase of shirting & suiting from that party. Thus the ld. AO held that the invoices of purchases made from this party by 6 invoices amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her stated that the assessee has also sold the dresses manufactured out of shirting & suiting purchased from Manjunatha Marketing and therefore when sales are accepted, the purchases cannot be denied as deduction. The ld. AR further stated that purchases are supported by bills, payment through banking channels, 3 out of 6 e-way bills are found to be in order and when the assessee has furnished the complete details, the onus shifts on the ld. AO to disprove the same. It was further stated that the addition made by the ld. AO is merely on the basis of conjectures & surmises. Even otherwise, the addition could be upheld to the extent of Gross Profit, purchases cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. 8. The ld. DR vehemently sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lli Post, Bangalore - 560061. This is the address which is available before the AO. The assessee also submitted the e-way bills and payment made to the above party during this financial year of Rs. 10 lakhs, out of the total purchases of Rs. 18,69,992 and outstanding balance of Rs. 8,69,992 was subsequently paid. The assessee is also supplying dresses as per information provided in the annual accounts. The above party is also shown as sundry creditors at sl.No.21 in the Schedule 3 of the annual accounts. The assessee has also taken credit of the GST that has been charged by Manjunatha Marketing. The ld. AO has neither provided any information that is available with him that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the bogus billing of Manjun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has not supplied goods but only invoices with goods, in that case addition would have been perfectly justified. It also cannot be denied that in the case of a small business, the goods can be also transported in a passenger car or 2 wheelers or in a small tractor. Merely mentioning the vehicle details, it may create a doubt that goods have not been supplied in the right mechanism or through right transport, but it is merely a suspicion which should be converted into conclusive evidence by making adequate enquiries. Such enquiry should be put forth before the assessee by confronting it and if assessee fails to discharge or rebut the evidence, addition is perfectly justified. However, in the absence of any enquiry, addition will remain merely....