TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, hence, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order by dealing with the facts of ITA NO. 316/Del/2025 (AY 2012- 13) being the lead case. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee has drew our attention towards an application for condonation of delay of 100 days, which has been placed on record and stated that the delay in filing the appeals was occurred due to specific circumstances which were beyond the control of the assessee viz. the assessee lacks knowledge of tax laws, procedures and computer operations and has always relied on professional assistance for compliance with tax matters. The assessee was suffering from a heart cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in view of the matter, action o the CIT(A) in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3)/147, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the admission of aforesaid additional grounds, the Bench has made a query with the Ld. AR for the assessee that under which facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by AO u/s 143(3)/14 and how the AO's order is passed without complying with mandatory conditions as envisaged u/s. 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and bad in law. On the aforesaid query, the Ld. AR for the assessee was unable to convince the Bench that under whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 5. That in any case and in view of the matter, action of CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of Rs. 22,45,957/- on account of cash purchases from M/s Uflex Ltd. u/s. 40A(3) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. It is noted that ground no. 1 and 2 are identical and more or less same as raised by the assessee in the form of additional grounds, as aforesaid, which have already been dismissed vide para 4 of this order, as aforesaid, hence, the ground no. 1 and 2 are dismissed in the same manner. As regards ground no. 3 is concerned, the same was not argued by the Ld. AR, hen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, the AO observed that the assessee had made cash purchase from the above amounting to Rs. 22,45,957/- and further the payment has been made in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in cash in a day, which is a violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, the details of the same payment has already been mentioned at page no. 2 of the assessment order. AO noted that assessee could not furnish any document or bring into the notice any fact, which could give him the benefit of exemption under any of the clauses mentioned in Rule 6/DD of the IT Rules, 1962. Since the assessee did not produce the entire purchase bills or copy of the purchase ledger, the amount of purchases shown from M/s Uflex Ltd. has no evidentiary value and on the contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as cash sales received by the above company from the assessee and claimed that the assessee had made cash purchases. It was stated that assessee had submitted an affidavit and contended that there is an oral agreement with M/s Uflex Ltd., regarding cash payment of material purchased against dishonor of cheques only. The assessee has produced the books of accounts alongwith GP and NP chart of various years, which have been accepted. It is further submitted that when the assessee's books of accounts and trading results, including sales expenses, have been accepted, then there is no question of making any disallowance of purchase. It was further submitted that assessee has made cash purchases in unavoidable circumstances that were beyond his ....