TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeals are disposed of by this common order. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal vide ITA No.1037/JPR/2024 for AY 2012-13:- Ground No.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order of AO in reopening of the case u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in as much as there is no failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, there is no independent application of mind by the AO while recording the reason to believe more so when it is third round of assessment and consequently upholding the order passed by AO u/s 147 of the Act which is without jurisdiction and time barred. Ground No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rprises as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act by:- (i) not appreciating that when assessee has included such amount in sale, again making the addition has resulted into double addition, more so when he has already accepted the purchases and stock (ii) not disproving pointing out any discrepancy in the various documents filed in support of sale (iii) not providing the copy of statement of Sh. Vipin Garg & Shri Anil Soni not allowing opportunity to crossexamine him which is the basis for making the addition (iv) not providing the copy of letter of Jt. DIT(Inv.), Gurugram, as relied upon by him, inspite of specific request in this regard (v) not appreciating that section 68 is not applicable to the amount received against sales (vi) not foll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tune of Rs. 1,37,40,151/- has escaped assessment on account of failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. The assessee filed objection against reopening of the assessment on 21.11.2019 which were disposed on 05.12.2019 by rejecting the objections filed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)upheld the validity of reopening of assessment holding that AO has material before him for formation of reasonable belief of escapement which has live nexus in his possession for assuming valid jurisdiction for reopening u/s 147 of the Act. The Ld. AO also carried out specific enquiry directly from the appellant before reopening the case but the appellant did not furnish the information. The AO has disposed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rohtak, the relevant portion of which is reproduced at Pg 3 to 8 of the assessment order held that Shree Ram Trading Company is a bogus firm of Sh. Vipin Garg providing the accommodation entry. The AO also referred to the statement of Sh. Vipin Garg dt. 17.04.2018 where, with reference to the specific question, relating to transaction with the assessee during F.Y. 2015-16, he admitted, that he received commission of 0.30% or 0.50% on the transaction made with Assessee Company. Accordingly he made addition of Rs. 12,25,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. In respect of transaction made with M/s. Varsha Enterprises, AO observed that M/s. Varsha Enterprises has not responded to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act dt. 18.12.2019. Therefore, on the basis of enqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Annexure 17) in the books of accounts, VAT invoices (Annexure 18), freight receipt (Annexure 19), weighment receipt (Annexure 20),dispatch register (Annexure 21),VAT Form 49A (Annexure 22), CST Form-C (Annexure 23), broker note (Annexure 24), ledger account of broker (Annexure 25),excise return (Annexure 26)and complete details of sales made to both the parties (Annexure 27).The assessee has sold goods to both the parties after receipt of payment and therefore only because these concerns have not responded to the notice issued to them u/s. 133(6) of the Act that is too after a lapse of more than 6 years cannot be viewed adversely more particularly when sales made to these concerns has been accepted by AO and the assessee has offered the en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of concerns through whom Sh. Vipin Garg was providing the accommodation entries. Hence in the absence of any documentary evidence by way of statement or otherwise, the sales made to Varsha Enterprises cannot be held to be non genuine and therefore addition of Rs. 1,25,15,151/- made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. So far as sales made to Shree Ram Trading Company are concerned, we find that Sh. Vipin Garg in his statement has admitted that through these concerns he has been providing the accommodation entry. The Ld. A/R has not brought on record any evidence that such statement is retracted by Sh. Vipin Garg. At the same time we note that Ld. A/R has brought on record the various evidences in support of sales which are not....