TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss Appeal Centre ('Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC' for short), New Delhi dated 28/06/2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:- "1. The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing services of erection of tents as well as illumination thereof by arranging for lighting by way of hiring of equipments. This service is provided various Government Departments. It is the allegation of the A.O. that as per information available in the ITBA System and Insight Portal, the assessee has made fictitious purchases totaling to Rs. 68,78,020/- from Shri AnkitKaranwal (PAN: FOPPK8646A) during the financial year 2017-18 (AY: 2018-19). Such finding was based on details ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the present Appeal. The Assessee has also filed Cross Objection. The respective grounds of Appeal/Cross Objection of the parties as under:- ITA No. 3514/DEL/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) "1. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 72,21,918/- (Rs.68,78,020/- + GST: Rs. 3,43,898/-) as unexplained expenditure on account of bogus purchases done by the assessee from Zenith Enterprises of entry provider Ankit Karanwal. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts to treat that bogus expenses of Rs. 68,78,020/- and bogus GST of Rs.3.43,898/ as genuine, contrary to the findings of the Investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing procedure as per amended provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. The above cross-objection are independent of, and without prejudice to each other." 4. Since, the Assessee has challenged the assessment order in the Cross Objection on the ground of non-issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act, we have heard on the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee. 5. There is a delay of 234 days in filing the C.O and the Assessee in the applications for condonation of delay contended as under:- 'It is respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the cross-objection was primarily due to bringing correct facts before the Hon'ble Bench as without confirming the service of the notice which was available on the E-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e first time raising the said issue by way of Cross Objection before this Tribunal which is not permissible. Further submitted that the additions have been made by the A.O. on its merits, which has been erroneously deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which requires interference at the hands of Tribunal. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the Cross Objection and allowing the Appeal of the Revenue. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the specific case of the Assessee that the notice u/s 148 A (b), or passed u/s 148A(d) and consequent notice u/s 148 of the Act were not digitally or manually signed. The copy of those notices/order are placed at page No. 1 to 5 of the PB. On verifying those documents, ....