TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-2022. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,64,04,151/-made u/s 69C of the Act without appreciating the fact the assessee failed to substantiate the expenditure claimed with supporting evidences? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,64,04,151/- made u/s 69C of the Act without remanding the additional evidences to the A.O for verification as required under Rule 46 of the I.T.Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were made through account payee cheques and all purchases were backed by valid GST documents. However, the AO held that the assessee had failed to substantiate the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of six suppliers aggregating to purchases of Rs. 10,64,04,151/-. He further observed that certain suppliers' GST numbers were cancelled and some were nonfilers. On this basis, the AO treated the said purchases as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and added Rs. 10,64,04,151/- to the total income of the assessee, completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(A), the assessee su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted the sales but had disallowed corresponding purchases without pointing out any discrepancies in the books of account or evidence of bogus transactions. It was also found that the GST registration numbers of suppliers were mentioned in the confirmations and reflected in the assessee's GSTR-2A, which proved that purchases were recorded on the GST portal after suppliers filed their returns. The CIT(A) therefore held that the purchases could not be treated as bogus merely because certain suppliers did not respond to the AO's notices or had filed low returns. In view of the detailed evidence produced by the assessee demonstrating the genuineness of purchases and sales, the CIT(A) held that the addition of Rs. 10,64,04,151/- made by the AO un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) proceeded to allow full relief to the assessee without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer as required under Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 8. In our considered view, once the CIT(A) admits additional evidences during appellate proceedings, he is mandatorily required to afford an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine and rebut such evidences before passing an order. The failure to do so constitutes a violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A(3) and renders the appellate order unsustainable in law. The Hon'ble Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Enzen Global Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2022] 144 taxmann.com 2 (Bang. - Trib.) held th....