TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] dated 23.05.2023 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of bogus purchase of Rs. 1,69,96,367/- u/s 69C of the Act under the provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases made. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the findings of the AO that no documentary evidences such as transport details, delivery challan etc, submitted by the assessee to prove the genuineness ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the One World Group Entities. During the course of search proceedings, based on the evidences gathered and statements recorded it was established that One World Group entities are involved in bogus purchase and bogus sales transactions wherein no actual goods were supplied/transferred. Shri Urvil Jani in his statement admitted that One World Group Entities were involved in bogus purchase and sales transactions. One World group entities had shown purchases from M/s R.K.Traders Prop:Manish Kapadia), M/s R.K.Impex (Prop: Manish Kapadia HUF) and M/s R.M.Textiles (Prop: RekhaKapadia). All the three concerns are said to be operating from Shri Manish Kapadia's residential address. In his statement, he stated that he was not involved in actual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt documentary evidences like purchase invoices, sales invoices, banking transaction reflecting payment to the suppliers and receipt from the buyers of the goods so purchased establishing genuine purchase from the above two entities during the assessment proceedings. The AO had not pointed out any defect in the audited books of account where the said purchase was duly accounted. Only dispute is purchase from the aforementioned two entities. No question was raised on the sales of the same goods. The assessee alleged that the AO had neither provided opportunity to it to cross examine the above suppliers nor found out any independent evidences from his individual enquiry establishing the fact that the appellant is indulged in bogus purchase. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other hand, the AO failed to establish the impugned purchase as bogus through any independent enquiry and proper verification. The AO totally relied upon the information received from the Investigation Wing. Even, he had not conducted any cross examination to verify the veracity of the information. Accordingly, the entire addition of Rs.1,69,96,367/- as bogus purchase was deleted. 5. Before us,the ld.DR that the addition was justified as the impugned transactions were bogus purchases as revealed in the search and seizure operations. The assessee failed to produce the delivery challans. The ld.CIT(A) completely overlooked the findings of the Investigation report which showed that the transactions were merely accommodation entries. 6. ....