AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2, declaring total income at INR 14,38,120/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny for the reason that assessee has made substantial purchase from buyers where either non-suppliers or non-filer(s) of ITR. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) followed by notices u/s 142(1) were issued alongwith questionnaires from time to time. The AO at page 2 of the assessment order observed that except one reply dated 13.10.2022, no notice was complied with by the assessee. Therefore, the AO issued summons u/s 133(6) of the Act to the respective supplier parties. The AO also obtained information from GST portal and it was observed that out of 08 parties who have not filed their ITRs for the year under appeal, in reply to notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue and enhanced the income of the assessee by INR 9,16,15,764/- u/s 69C of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein various Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee as per the appeal memo. 4. Since all the Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are with respect to the action of Ld. PCIT in making the addition on account of entire purchases held as bogus after holding the assessment order as erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue u/s 263 of the Act therefore, they are taken together for consideration. 5. Before us, Ld.AR submits that case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reason that a search action was carried out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olding the assessment order as erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue. Ld. AR further submits that assessee has filed all the details in order to establish the purchases as genuine before Ld.PCIT. However, Ld.PCIT has failed to point out any defect in the same and hold that AO should have made the addition of the entire purchases. Ld.AR further submits that AO making the addition @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, have already been filed before Ld. PCIT however, no default / error was pointed out in the same before reaching to the conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Ld. AR further submits that an appeal was filed against the addition made in the assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(supra). Ld. PCIT observed that once the purchases were held as bogus, 100% disallowance of the same should be made and thus, hold the assessment order as erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue and by placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). It is observed that AO in its order alleged that assessee has not filed the details however, from the perusal of the acknowledgements of e-proceedings filed before us dated 15.12.2022 through which assessee has filed various details to establish the genuineness of the purchases made. 8. The assessee has filed all the details before the lower authorities which includes copies of invoices, bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd v. Dy. CIT reported in (2017) 84 Taxmann.com195 (SC). Once the AO has taken one of the plausible views which is supported by the judicial pronouncements. Ld. PCIT cannot held that view as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue based on some other judgement. 9. Ld. PCIT had ignored the fact that assessee has filed an appeal against the addition made by the AO and in appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT (A) has power of enhancements of income assessed, if desired so, therefore, once the AO has framed an opinion based on judicial pronouncements and accepted the trading results declared by the assessee, the action of Ld. PCIT in holding the said order as erroneous and pre-judi....