TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enuineness 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 of the said transaction made with M/s R.K. Impex (Prop: Manish Kapadia HUF) 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the assessee has made bogus purchases from M/s R.K. Impex (Prop: Manish Kapadia HUF) which was engaged in providing accommodation entries. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the light of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Drisha Impex Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1240 of 2018 with ITA No 2087 of 2018 dated 07.04 2025 and Kanak Impex (India) Ltd in ITA No 791 of 2021 dated 03.03.2025. 5. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, alter, DL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative ("Ld. AR" for short) for the assessee, on the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that the assessee has submitted voluminous details such as purchase and sales invoices, ledgers and bank statements etc. discharging its initial onus casted upon it in proving the genuineness of the transaction. The Ld. AR further stated that the Ld. AO has not verified the documents submitted by the assessee neither has issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the impugned suppliers and has also not conducted any independent enquiry for verifying whether any business activity was carried out by M/s. R.K. Impex. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. AO has neither disputed the corresponding sales nor rebutted the documents filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2016- 17 where on identical facts the purchases made with M/s. R.K. Impex was held to be genuine. The Ld. AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue that requires adjudication is whether the purchases made by the assessee from M/s. R.K. Impex was merely a bogus tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filed before him. The finding of the Ld. AO is on the basis of vague or general observation and not specific or evidence based finding without proper enquiry and linkage to the facts of the assessee's case. The Ld. AO ought to have conducted a reasonable enquiry such as issuing notices to the alleged parties, examining whether the confirmation given by such parties are genuine, verifying the stock in sales along with the bank trial etc. to establish the fact that the purchases are bogus or inflated. We are conscious of the fact that various higher forums as well as the co-ordinate Benches have held that the standard evidences to prove the identity of the supplier, movement of goods along with payment trial has to be established by cogent documentary evidences pertaining to purchase documents, details of the supplier, delivery and movement of goods, bank statement etc. which has to be examined by the lower authorities pertaining to the genuineness of the said documents. In the present case in hand the assessee claims to have filed the documents before the lower authorities which was not discussed at length by the Ld. AO but considered by the Ld. CIT(A) who held the transaction to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of items purchased, details of payments made through banking channel along with sample invoice bills, sales register, sales invoices and purchase invoices. The Ld. AO sought for details of transportation of goods for which the assessee contended that its nature of business was such that the transportation cost was not paid by the assessee neither while selling nor while purchasing the goods. Further, the Ld. AO observed that in the sample purchase bills there were no signature of receipt of the products was seen which according to the Ld. AO are fabricated bills. The Ld. AO also relied on the statement of the parties recorded during the search who admitted that they were mere accommodation entry providers. The Ld. AO also disputed the transaction of sale with regard to some of the parties whose nature of business was completely different from that of the textile business and hence held the same to be not genuine. The Ld. AO also noted that the VAT return submitted by the assessee are revised returns and not original returns which were revised on 29.11.2018 and 30.11.2018 which was two years after the transaction of sale and purchase were made. Further, the Ld. AO observed that ther....