TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- "5. The relevant facts which were pointed out before the Tribunal have been recorded at paragraph 3 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. It has been expressly recorded by the Tribunal that the Applicant had pointed out that the suppliers have filed the GST returns and that the payments have been made through banking channels. The Tribunal has also recorded that out of the 28 parties, physical verification of only 3 parties was carried out and in respect of other parties, notices under section 133(6) of the Act was issued which were not responded to by the said parties. 6. From the compilation of judgments filed before the Tribunal, the Applicant had pointed out the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the order has held that (1) the Respondent has carried out a thorough enquiry by issuing notice under section 133(6) and by carrying out physical verification (2) claim of Applicant is supported by documentary evidence and (3) doubt remains on the nature of business activity and the authenticity of the transactions. d. The Learned Representative of the Respondent had urged that the creditworthiness of the suppliers is in doubt in view of non-filing of income-tax returns and non-declaration of the parties in their respective ITRs. The Hon'ble Tribunal had accepted the said argument. e. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT vs. Ashwin P Bajaj (ITA No. 576 of 2018) whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence such as sales tax returns and VAT Audit reports. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court held that disallowance by 10% estimate is not warranted. The facts being identical, the Applicant submits that the decision of Ashok Kumar Rungta ought to have been followed. d. The Applicant most respectfully states that the facts in the present case are even better than the case of Ashok Kumar Rungta (supra) insofar as in the present case, the Applicant has pointed transportation of goods by producing the e-way bills which was generated by the very supplier which is alleged to be non-existent. The Applicant submits that the finding that the suppliers are non-existent is without considering the material which was admittedly on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that it had filed a compilation of judgments and in the said compilation, the decisions in case of Mather & Platt (India) Ltd vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 493 (Calcutta), PCIT vs. Sanjay Dhokad (2023) 456 ITR 77 (Bombay), Hindalco Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (2024) 165 taxmann.com 606 (MumbaiTrib.), CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bombay) and Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (2024) 206 ITD 171 (Mumbai-Trib.) were cited in support of the proposition that non-response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act and lack of presence of the party upon physical verification is no ground to disallow the claim of the Applicant. The Applicant most respectfully submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal has failed to consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e find that the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee has to fail as unadmitted. 4. Even, on merits, we find that the assessee, in fact, seeks review of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is not permitted by law, as the Bench, on the basis of material placed before it, has taken the view by recording the following findings:- "8. After hearing the submissions of both parties and reviewing the documents on record, we proceed to dispose the appeal filed by the assessee. It is evident that the Ld. AO conducted a thorough inquiry, including issuing notices and utilizing the Verification Unit. However, the identity of the parties involved in the transactions, was not conclusively established. The expenses recorded by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchases, amounting to Rs. 2,16,42,907/-. While we considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ashok Kumar Rungta (supra), which addressed cases involving insufficient inquiries by the Ld. AO, we note that in the present appeal, the Ld. AO conducted a comprehensive investigation, providing the assessee with ample opportunities, including virtual hearings, to present evidence. Considering these facts, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned appeal order is upheld." 5. As per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal can rectify any apparent mistake within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. Accordingly, we fin....