TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 01.10.2025, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, arguments have been advanced only by Ld. DR for the department. 5. The impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is dated 21.06.2024. Present appeal came to be presented on 24.08.2024. An application came to be filed on behalf of the department seeking condonation of delay of three days. Ld. DR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period, as in some of the cases pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19, re-assessment proceedings were to be initiated by 31.08.2024, on account of changes made by the Ministry of Finance, which were effective from 10.09.2024; that due to technical glitches in the system, order-sheet could not be downloaded; and also that that there being holidays and festivity period i.e. due to Independence Day and Raksha Bandhan, most of the staff of the department had gone out of station. 6. On behalf of the assessee, no reply came to be furnished to this application controverting the averments put forth therein by furnishing sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay. 7. Calculating the period for the purpose of filing of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve and cogent analysis of all the material seized/found during the course of investigation. Further, During the search and seizure action carried out in the case of Baba Group a statement u/s. 132(4) dated 10.02.2022 of Shri Anup Goyal recorded at the residence of Shree Gopal Goyal, Manju Devi Goyal, Abhishek Goyal, Preet Goyal, Anud Goyal, Aakanksha Goyal located at E-4-5-6, opposite Maya bazar, Laxmi Narayan Vihar. Madanganj Kishangarh. 3.8 Furthermore, the department is of the view that the statement of Shri. Anup Goyal of M/s Baba Group recorded under section 132(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961 cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the documents in question did not signed by the assessee. The contents of the statement of Shri Anup Goyal cannot be denied or discarded since the same has been recorded by the department on oath, Further, it is pertinent to note here that the department fined no substance in the contentions raised in the detailed reply filed by the assessee dated 27/02/2024 to controvert the said statement of Anup Goyal recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. 3.9 Assessee's reply filed on 27/02/2024 on ITBA module is taken in to consideration, f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and admissible u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 3.13 Consequently, the transactions made by the assessee in form of inflating purchases of raw materials and return cash amounting to Rs. 1,22,42,606/- with Sh. Anup Goyal promoter of Baba Group, remain unaccounted/unexplained. Consequently, the transaction undertaken with the above concerns amounting to Rs. 1,22,42,606/- are cannot be treated as genuine. It is therefore non genuine purchases made by the assessee remained unaccounted/unexplained. Therefore, addition of Rs. 1,22,42,606/- is made in view of the provision of section 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 and taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 12. While allowing the appeal, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, of the having perused the material on record, observed as under:- "I have perused the materials available on record and gone through the assessment order, a search & seizure action was carried out on 10.02.2022 in the cases of "Baba Group". Various premises were covered either in search action u/s 132 and/or in survey action u/s 133A of the act. The search and survey proceedings conducted on Baba group unearthed certain incriminating evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 69C was made with insufficient grounds and the same cannot stand in the eyes of law After considering the above facts and the decisions as relied upon by the appellant, I therefore delete the addition of Rs. 1,22,42,606/- made under section 69C of the Act. As a result, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed." 13. As noticed above, there was search and seizure action on 10.2.2022 on Baba Group, which is stated to have led to discovery of incriminating material i.e. generation of undisclosed income by them by inflating expenses by increasing the rates of raw material etc. purchased by them from various marble manufacturers in Kishangarh. So, the allegation was that Baba Group indulged in purchase of raw material from persons like assessee. In this way, it was stated to be a case of transactions of "sale" of raw material etc., by the assessee to Baba Group. In other words, it was not a case with allegation of purchase of any raw material etc. by the assessee from Baba Group. 14. Even otherwise, section 69C of the Act would come into application only in case of unexplained expenditure by an assessee during a financial year, about the source of whi....