TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 30-07-2022 was invalid, thereby entire proceedings U/s 147/148 of the act was bad in law, void ab initio and not maintainable under the law on the following grounds a) Notice U/s148 was barred by limitation as Notice U/s148A(b) having been initiated after 6 years from the end of the assessment year. The Assessment year under review was not covered by TOLA as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. b) Notice U/s148 dated 30-07-2022 was barred by limitation in view of Supreme Court judgment in the matter of UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal (03-10-2024) as the said Notice was issued after surviving period. AND ITAT, KOLKATA "B" Bench vide ITA No. 2092/Kol/2025 21.11.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 allowed the appeal on the said ground in the appellant own case (covered issue). c) That DIN and Notice no. was not mentioned in the Notice U/s 148 dated 30-07-2022 violating CBDT circular No. 19/2019. d) That Notice U/s148 dated 30-07-2022 was issued by jurisdictional A.O. instead of faceless A.O. violating CBDT circular dated 29-03-2022 r.w.s 151A(1) & 151A(2). 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and interest charged U/s 234C etc. 9. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of this appeal." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,97,800/-. Based on the information that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries to the extent of Rs.1,09,44,760/- from Ajay Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of Jai Matadi Enterprise, through various shell entities during the FY 2014-15, the case was reopened u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.07.2022 after passing an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act with prior approval of the competent authority. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that it had made sales to M/s Hari Om Udyog but failed to provide necessary documentary evidence such as challan-cum-tax invoice, weighbridge slips, transportation details, freight charges, and date-wise payment details, nor could it furnish contra-confirmations from the party. Consequently, the Ld. AO, relying on rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1961 and set off of C/F business loss Rs. 7,31,329/-. Thereafter, return was filed on 18-08-2022 disclosing the same income of Rs. 2,97,800/- in terms of Notice U/s148 dated 30-07-2022. 3. That Notices U/s142(1) dated 09-01-2023, U/s 143(2) dated 19-04-2023 U/s 142(1) dated 01-05-2023 and show cause notice dated 16-05-2023 were replied in full (not part reply) through e-portal on 18-01-2023, 24-04-2023, 04-05-2023, 12-05-2023, and 19-05-2023 respectively. The replies were made as per requisitions of Ld. A.O. in full, parawise and there was no part reply. 4. That the Ld. A.O. on the basis of information received from investigation wings of Income Tax, Jamshedpur, reopen the assessment without recording specific reason for re-opening the case which can be seen from the notice U/s148A(b) dated 21-05-2022, as a result the Ld. A.O. was confused whether the escapement of income was on account of either sales transaction or purchase transactions or both. 5. That during the assessment year under appeal the appellant sold sponge iron amounting to Rs. 1,10,12,597/- time to time to Hariom Udyog (Prop. Ajay Kr. Sharma), PAN:CIBPS 1382J & TIN/VAT 20960808377....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kr, Sharma having PAN: CBIPS 13892J is common both the cases. In spite of repeated request to the Ld. A.O. from the appellant's side the Ld. A.O. never made any independent verification/enquiry regarding the said matter. and no new material was brought on record. 9. That the Ld. A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,09,44,750/- made u/s. 69C due to alleged bogus sale. However, Sec. 69C of the act speaks about unexplained expenditure etc. not unexplained sale/unexplained investment etc. 10. That the Ld. A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, failed to allow cross examination to Mr. Ajay Kr. Sharma (Prop. Hariom Udyog) ignoring the apex court judgment. 11. That the Ld. A.O and Ld. CIT(A). relied on various citations regarding bogus purchase where separate independent enquiry/verification made by the income tax authorities. However, the present alleged issue is related to unaccounted sales where no separate enquiry/verification was done by the Ld. A.O. & CIT(A) and various citations relied by the appellant were not considered without any reason." {Emphasis supplied} 6. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 relate to the addition of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been made in the computation of income), page 110 onwards of the paper book which is the audit report along with the balance sheet a balance sheet and page 133 for the sales and purchases made in support of the claim that the transactions were made to Hariom Udyog and not to Jay Matadi Enterprise and therefore, the conclusion that bogus sales/purchases were made to Shri Ajay Kr. Sharma is not correct. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but could not controvert the assertions of the Ld. AR. 8. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds of appeal raised are argumentative. However, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has noted in para 9.2 that the assessee had made sales to Hariom Udyog, proprietor Shri Ajay Kr. Sharma instead of Jay Matadi Enterprise and whereas the information in possession of the Ld. AO was that the assessee had taken accommodation entry to the extent of Rs.1,09,44,730/- from Shri Ajay Kr. Sharma, proprietor of Jay Matadi Enterprise through various shell companies. Neither the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has given....