TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. A short issue is involved in the matter. The petitioner has assailed the issuance of notice under section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") dated 31.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22, the order passed by the respondent under section 148A(3) of the Act dated 28.06.2025, as well as the notice issued under section 148 of the Act of even date. FACTS: 4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of civil construction. In the Financial Year 2020-21, the petitioner had entered into a deal for the purchase of cement with M/s. Dhairya Enterprise and M/s. Shree Enterprise. According to the terms of negotiation, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a summons from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad, which was duly responded to vide response dated 17.09.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner was again issued a notice from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Jamnagar on 17.12.2024, which was also responded to on 17.01.2025. 6. Thereafter, on the strength of the information flagged on the Insight Portal regarding the passing on of fraudulent Input Tax Credit without actual supply of corresponding goods in the case of M/s. Dhairya Enterprise (Prop. Drashti Shaileshkumar Jitiya), the impugned show-cause notice under section 148A(1) of the Act dated 31.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its objection vide letter dated 13.04.2025. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the issue of Rs. 3,67,43,973/- being the component of GST claimed as expenditure having escaped assessment, and therefore, the petitioner never had an opportunity to explain how the same had not escaped assessment. It was further submitted that the order under section 148A(3) of the Act is quite different from the information available with the respondent, which led to the issuance of notice under section 148A(1) of the Act. It was also submitted that the case of the petitioner was the subject matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act precisely on account of purchases from non-filers. He submitted that detailed verification was carried out during the assessment proceedings and hence, reopening on the same ground amounts to a chan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that from the ledger, it is evident that the assessee claimed to have advanced a sum of Rs. 17,74,50,073/- against purchases, and although the vendor provided invoices, it did not supply goods. He further submitted that though the assessee claimed to have made advance payments against purchase orders, the vendor provided only invoices without supply of goods, and the assessee did not provide copies of such invoices. Hence, it was submitted that it is not ascertainable whether the payment made by the assessee was an advance or was made only after receipt of invoices. Further, it was submitted that against such payment of Rs. 17,74,50,073/-, the assessee wrote off only Rs.14,07,06,100/-, whereas the remaining payment was appropriated against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025 issued under section 148A(1) of the Act, it was alleged that the petitioner had entered into bogus purchase transactions amounting to Rs.14,07,06,096/-. While passing the order dated 28.06.2025 under section 148A(3) of the Act, it was held that against the amount of Rs. 17,74,50,073/-, i.e. the advanced sum against purchases, the petitioner had written off only Rs.14,07,06,100/-, whereas the remaining sum of Rs. 3,67,43,973/- was appropriated against the GST account and claimed as expenditure towards bogus purchases. It was therefore concluded that income to that extent had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. This opinion was formed despite the petitioner having paid a sum of Rs. 5,13,02,342/- towards inter....