TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2019-20. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows: "Ground 1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 32,75,050/- U/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by Ld. Assessing officer treating the genuine purchases as bogus transaction as unexplained expenditure. Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and regard being had to the facts of the case, no such addition should have been made. Reasons assigned are wrong, totally unreasonable and illogical to justify the addition made. Ground 2: The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-NFAC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he held the purchases made from M/s. Bristal Tube Industries amounting to Rs. 32,75,050/- as bogus and disallowed the same u/s. 69C of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide order dated 04.08.2025, against which assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee has filed appeal raising several factual and legal grounds relating to the sole substantive addition made on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 32,75,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act. 4.1 i. Firstly, on merits, ld. AR has submitted as under the that the ld. AO has only doubted the purchases due to the fact that transportation of goods from its supplier having factory in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had been produced in the case of Kanak Impex and no compliance had been made before the ld. AO whereas, in the present case, the assessee has made due compliance and has produced requisite supporting documents like purchase bills, bank statements, delivery challans etc. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities. He has pointed out that proof of transportation was sought from the assessee in response to which delivery challans showing delivery by hand carts were filed. Ld. AO has examined these and rejected the same vide detailed reasons mentioned in the assessment order. Considering these facts in the back drop of the report of the CGST authorities received alongwith enquiry report of the In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough Handcart. Supply of goods of thousands of kilogram via handcart covering a distance of almost 550km does not seem usual in business and therefore raises a doubt." Ld. DR has also placed reliance on the recent decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Kanak Impex (supra) and Drisha Impex [2025] 173 taxmann.com 571 wherein 100% of disallowance of bogus purchases has been upheld when the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of purchases. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The issue relates to purchases amounting to Rs. 37,75,050/- shown by the assessee from M/s. Bristal Tube Industries and ld. AO has doubted the delivery challans stating that such volum....