TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y.' for short) 2008-09, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 1922/Mum/2025, A.Y. 2008-09 as a lead case. ITA No. 1922/Mum/2025; (Assessment Year: 2008-09) 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the act of the AO in issuing the notice u/s. 148 in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of judicial mind and without having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, thereby reassessment order is bad in law. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirmin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d filed its return of income dated 30.09.2008, declaring total income at Rs. 1,89,100/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 09.08.2009. The assessee's case was reopened vide notice u/s. 148 dated 25.03.2015 and further, Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. Pursuant to the information received from the DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai, the ld. AO observed that the assessee company had involved in providing accommodation entries for which it received estimated commission @1% and the assessee has made purchase of Rs. 11,85,42,962/- and sales of Rs. 11,93,81,087/- and estimated commission @ 1% amounting to Rs. 23,79,240/- for the impugned year. As the assessee failed to furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pport of its claim. The ld. DR prayed that all these appeals be dismissed. 9. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the additions made by the ld. A.O. before the first appellate authority on account of share application money, commission income and interest income before whom the assessee submitted that the reason for non-submission of the documents was not intentional and was because of the non-cooperation by the previous management of the company being the reason for not furnishing the relevant documents before the ld. AO. The assessee further filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 pert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not debited the expenditure under the head 'Transportation and Handling charges' and 'loading and unloading' expenses, corroborating the fact that the assessee has not carried out any actual purchase or sale transaction and had merely entered into bogus transaction for which both the lower authorities have estimated 1% commission on the total purchase and sale transactions. 12. Before us, the assessee has neither appeared nor filed any documentary evidence by way of additional evidence to corroborate its claim that these are genuine transaction. Pertinently, the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Buniyad Chemicals Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for statistical purpose. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1922/Mum/2025 is hereby partly allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 1926/Mum/2025; (Assessment Year. 2013-14) 16. Ground no. 2 of ITA No. 1926/Mum/2025 pertains to cash deposit made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 10,78,000/- were the ld. AO made an addition on the impugned amount as undisclosed income of the assessee which was then upheld by the ld. CIT(A), for the reason that the assessee has failed to explain the source of the said cash deposits made in its bank account maintained with HDFC Bank. 17. Before us, the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences to establish the source of the said deposit and in failure of the s....