2026 (8) TMI 870

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Circle 1(1), Mumbai ('AO' for short) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) for A.Y.2019-20. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is in the business of trading of diamonds. The appellant filed its Return of Income (RoI) for the assessment year in question on 15.09.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 1,32,20,680/-. The appellant's case was reopened u/s. 148 vide notice dated 27.02.2023. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its RoI on 03.03.2023 maintaining the same income as declared earlier. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued. The AO vide order dated 08.02.2024 determined the income at Rs. 1,38,85,725/- on account of variation of Rs. 6,65,045/- u/s. 69C of the Act. The A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sales and purchases. The appellant had sought the said material which was the basis of the impugned addition and also requested for an opportunity of cross examination which has not been granted. 6. In appeal, the appellant reiterated that the only purchases made from M/s. REPL were amounting to Rs. 3,66,541/- for which necessary documentary evidence has been produced. The appellant denied having made any purchases in cash as alleged. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has refused to accept the contention on the ground that the appellant failed to offer any comments regarding the material recovered during the search of M/s. REPL showing unaccounted purchases as per ledgers extracted from the software. The ld. CIT(A) also found that the appellant had ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....challenging the merits of the impugned order, the appellant has also raised additional ground on 03.07.2025 claiming that the notice dated 27.02.2023 u/s. 148 of the Act is void ab initio and bad in law as the same is not issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) but by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). We will revert to this aspect a little later. 13. In so far as the merits of the impugned addition is concerned, we do find that the impugned addition is solely based on the alleged recovery of a software during the search action on M/s. REPL which according to the AO indicated that separate accounts were maintained by M/s. REPL in respect of unaccounted purchases and sales made. Indisputably the said material has not been ....