2026 (5) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). The assessee has also filed a Cross Objection ('CO') arising out of ITA No.717/RPR/2025. 2. Since the facts and issues involved in these cases are similar and identical, therefore, we have heard both appeal and CO together and are being decided vide this common order. 3. The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is as under: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,92,55,750/- made by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee relying upon the submission of the assessee, without going into the merits of the case and ignoring the facts brought on record by the AO. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-15 relevant for AY 2015-16; therefore, the case of the assessee was re-opened on protective basis. Consequentially, the assessment was also completed by taxing the bogus purchases of Rs. 1,92,55,750/- on protective basis only. 5. At the outset, Shri G.S. Agrawal, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the reasons recorded for reopening of the case clearly mentioned that the assessee was one of the partners in the partnership firm, namely, M/s Ganpati Dal Mill in the relevant year. After the dissolution of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Ganpati Dal Mill, the assessee became proprietor M/s Ganpati Dal Mill with effect from 01.04.2015. He contended that even if it was accepted for the sake of discussion that in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed written submission along with a copy of bank statements and computation of income. The Assessing Officer had not disputed the assessee's sales. There was no discrepancy between the purchases shown by the assessee and the sale declared. That being the position, the purchases cannot be rejected without disturbing the sales in case of a trade. The appellant was one of the partner in M/s Ganpati Dall Mill. Considering the submissions made and the jurisdictional ITAT judgements quoted by the appellant the addition of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 1,95,55,750/- which relates to M/s Ganpati Dall Mill, in the case of the appellant on a protective basis without substantial evidences or findings by the Assessing Officer is directed to be dele....