TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s.148 issued after expiry of 4 years, though the sanction from correct specified/ approving authority viz. Pr. CIT prescribed u/s.151(1) has not been granted; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 is invalid and consequential reassessment order passed u/s 147 is bad in law since had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of judicial mind and without having valid reason to believe of escapement of income; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of entire alleged non-genuine purchase [@ 100%] of Rs. 38,83,253/ of traded goods (diamonds) made from supplier M/s. Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd; 4.0 The Ld. CIT(A), before confirming the disallowance of purchase of Rs. 38,83,253/- @ 100% of disputed purchase erred in ignoring the understated vital facts, being; a) The disputed purchase of diamonds is supported with purchase bills, delivery challan, confirmation of account, stock tally and bank statements; b) Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of traded goods is seriosly unjustified and only the suppressed profits on alleged non-genuine purchase of traded goods could be brought to tax; d) The penalty proceedings are separate and independent to the assessment proceeding; e) The appellant had made complete disclosure of all material facts in the return of income and during course of assessment. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." ITA No. 612/SRT/2025 (AY 2007-08): 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed the return of income for AY 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs. 6,70,840/-. Information was received from the Investigation Wing, regarding the bogus purchases made by assessee from various persons. A search and seizure action were conducted on 03.10.2013 in group concerns of Shri Rajendra Jain and Shri Sachin Pareekh. The company M/s. Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. was controlled and managed by them. Their concerns were engaged in merely paper transaction. Companies of Rajendra Jain Group issue bogus sales bills to various parties on basis of paper stock lying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chase transactions were supported with exhaustive documentary evidences such as PAN/AO details, ledger account/confirmation of account of supplier, purchase bills, corresponding sales bills, bank statement, quantitative tally of diamonds, stock register, etc. The Ld. AR stated that the appellant had received the delivery of the goods (diamonds) and in turn, it had made the payments by A/c. payee cheques/RTGS and the appellant cannot be penalized for any nongenuine transactions entered by its supplier. The ld. AR further submitted that the confirmation of account of the supplier duly confirms the transactions entered by such suppliers with the appellant and that the AO had not found any falsity in above stated documents filed by the appellant. The AO has also not brought any contrary material and evidence to disprove the bonafide transactions of the appellant and therefore, the disallowance of entire purchases made from disputed party was unjustified. The ld. AR alleged that the appellant was not provided an opportunity of cross examination of the disputed party. The Ld. AR further submitted that there cannot be a case of only sales without corresponding purchase. If there is a sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es from the said Shri Rajendra Jain group. The ground is partly allowed. 10. Ground Nos.1 and 2 regarding validity of assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act has not been seriously argued by the ld. AR and ld. Sr. DR. The same is accordingly dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.613/SRT/2025 (AY 2007-08): 12. Brief facts of the case are that in the case of assessee, assessment order u/s.144 of the Act was passed on 27.02.2015, determining the total income of the appellant at Rs. 45,53,730/- after making addition of Rs. 38,83,253/- on account of bogus purchase. Besides, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO passed the penalty order on 25.03.2019, imposing a penalty of Rs. 11,99,924/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. 13. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the AO, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his order passed u/s.250 of the Act. 14. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed p....