TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g grounds of appeal raised while filing the appeal in Form 35 I. The learned assessing officer erred in a. passing the assessment order u/s 147 r/w section 144B. When, the notice issued u/s 148 dt.7.4.22 is bad in law, since, * The alleged income is not represented in the form of an asset, expenditure, an entry in the books [refer section 149(b)] * The notice u/s 148 was issued without any application of mind and without recording the self-satisfaction of the AO and thus is bad in law. * It was issued [after proceedings u/s 148A(b)] without granting a personal interview and resolving the objections raised thereon. * The reason for which the assessment was reopened does not persist i.e. no invoice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n attachment with the executive summary filed [as desired by CIT(A)] after the Video conferencing. 6. Confirming penalty proceeding for notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271B/ dismissing the ground no. 3, i.e. "issuing penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271B" when it is evident from the income tax website that the tax audit report u/s 44AB was uploaded by the tax auditor and confirmed by your appellant." 3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal: "1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'NFAC') has failed to appreciate that the notice issued to reopen and the subsequent assessment order are bad in law and void ab initio as no addition has been made on the issues raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that M/s. Germanium Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Gannonball Trading Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in issuing bogus invoices and assessee was one of the beneficiary of bogus invoices/loan from the said parties in the form of bogus invoices of Rs. 1,07,68,328/-. 5. However, during the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that as per party wise sales, the assessee had declared total sales amounting to Rs. 36,24,13,765/- whereas in the trading of profit and loss account, the assessee had shown total sales of Rs. 33,24,60,256/-. In respect of purchases, the assessing officer noticed that as per party wise detail, the assessee had shown total purchases to the amount of Rs. 34,89,13,119/- whereas the purchases declared in the trading acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer authorities. 9. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information from the CGST Authorities that M/s. Germanium Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cannonball Trading Pvt. Ltd. have issued bogus invoices and the assessee has received such bogus invoices. The assessee was asked to submit the detail in respect of bogus invoices of Rs. 1,07,68,326/- received from the above entities and was also asked to show cause and explain by such bogus invoices of Rs. 1,07,68,328/- shall not be treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. However, the AO has not made any discussion verification and examination of this issue in the assessment order. On the other hand, the AO has made ....