TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has taken the following Grounds of Appeal:- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing ex-parte order which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming action of AO in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 77,61,745/- made under section 37 of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases. 4. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and documentary eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the learned CIT(A). The affidavit further explains that the assessee came to know about the impugned order only when a tax consultant accessed the income-tax portal after obtaining the credentials from the erstwhile Chief Accountant, whereafter immediate steps were taken to seek professional advice and to file the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The reasons stated in the affidavit are supported by surrounding circumstances and there is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or intentional. It is well settled that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when sufficient cause is shown. In the present case, we are s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch as confirmations from the supplier, delivery challans, e-way bills, transportation details and other supporting documents to establish the genuineness of the purchases. Even the notice issued to the supplier under section 133(6) of the Act remained unanswered. Considering the lack of corroborative evidence and relying upon the investigation inputs, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of Rs. 77,61,745/- as bogus and disallowed the same under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 88,37,215/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....failed to point out any specific procedural lapse or legal infirmity in the reopening proceedings. Accordingly, the challenge to reopening and validity of reassessment was rejected and Grounds Nos. 1 and 2 were dismissed. 9. With respect to Grounds of Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 concerning the disallowance of Rs. 77,61,745/- on account of alleged bogus purchases, the CIT(Appeals) noted that during the assessment proceedings the assessee could not furnish basic documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the purchases, such as confirmations from the supplier, delivery challans, transportation details or e-way bills. The CIT(Appeals) further noted that even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee chose not to file any evidence or e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily on account of non-filing of detailed submissions and supporting evidences by the assessee before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is evident from the record that the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was disposed of on the basis of material available on record and the assessment order, without the benefit of effective assistance from the assessee in the form of written submissions and documentary evidences, even though the issues involved pertain to alleged bogus purchases and require proper appreciation of facts, documents and explanations. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that certain relevant aspects, such as nondisturbance of opening and closing stock and filing of transport-related docu....