TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn arises out of an order passed by assessing officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.03.2024. 02. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed the original return of income for the Assessment Year 2022-23 on 20.10.2022, declaring a total income of Rs. 19,61,110/-. The case of assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS on the ground that the assessee had made substantial purchases from suppliers who were non-filers of Income-tax Returns. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished replies along with supporting documents in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. On verification of the details, the Assessing Officer noticed discrepancies between the purchases c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of the Ld. CIT (A) assessee was in appeal before the CIT(A)'s where the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the reasoning that the appellant had furnished comprehensive documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer, including reconciliation statements and third-party documents such as GSTR-9 of the suppliers. However, the Assessing Officer failed to consider these submissions or examine the reconciliation furnished by the appellant. Although the Assessing Officer concluded that the actual delivery of goods was not established, the appellant had produced e-way bills, bill-T form, transport receipts, invoices and transporter details (such as New Jay Mataji Transport and Rajit Logistics). The Assessing Officer neither ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oubted the transactions or the identity of the parties, the entire purchases would have been treated as non-genuine. Instead, the Assessing Officer accepted the existence of the transactions and based the addition only on differences arising from GST-inclusive and GST-exclusive figures. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the reconciliations and explanations submitted by the appellant and ignored the documentary evidence placed on record, including purchase invoices, bank statements, ledger accounts, ledger confirmations, e-way bills, bill-T, transporter documents and Table 8A of GSTR-9. It was also observed that the Assessing Officer did not identify any specific defect in the documents furnished by the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pointed out any specific defect in the evidences furnished by the assessee nor rebutted the reconciliation submitted by it. Therefore, it was submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference. 07. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,71,13,180/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. From the assessment order, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition mainly on the ground that notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act to seven suppliers remained unc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer has nowhere disputed the identity of the suppliers, the banking channels through which payments were made or the genuineness of the books of account maintained by the assessee. The addition has been made primarily because certain suppliers did not respond to notices issued under section 133(6) and because of differences between the figures reflected in the GST records and those recorded in the books of account. In our considered opinion, merely because third parties fail to respond to notices issued under section 133(6), no adverse inference can automatically be drawn against the assessee when the assessee has discharged the primary burden cast upon it by producing complete documentary evidence in support of the purchases. We also find....