TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the matter to his tax consultant/accountant, who had been handling the assessment proceedings. However, due to inadvertent lapse and oversight on the part of the said consultant, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. In this regard, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that it is a settled position of law that a litigant should not suffer for the mistake of his counsel, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nirmala Devi. Accordingly, he pleaded that assessee has a strong case on merits, inter alia, involving addition based solely on their party statement without cross-examination and, therefore, non-condonation of delay would result in grave injustice to the assessee and pleaded to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 3. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought relevant facts of the case and his submissions are as under. The assessee is an individual carryi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under section 115BBE. Consequently, the total income was assessed at Rs. 37,64,490/- as against the returned income of Rs. 3,29,490/-, and a demand of Rs. 44,94,413/- (including tax, interest and penalty) was raised. 6. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) challenging, inter alia, the addition of Rs. 34,35,000/- on account of alleged bogus purchases and reiterating that the purchases were fully supported by tax invoices, ledger accounts, bank statements and e-way bills. It was further contended that, in any event, the GST component could not form part of the alleged unexplained expenditure. However, the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 01.12.2025 upheld the assessment order and dismissed the appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. However, assessee has raised various grounds but at the time of hearing, only Grounds No.5 & 8 were argued and proceeded to adjudicate only these grounds being Grounds No.5 & 8, read as under :- "5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the addition made under section 69C of the Act is wholly unsustaina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pointed out any defect in the purchase records, bank transactions, GST records or execution of Government contracts as can be seen from order passed under section 147 of the Act [Paper book page no. 41 of Volume - I]. The Department has also not established that the payments made through banking channels were returned to the Appellant. Reliance is placed on the following Judicial precedents: (i) The Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench in DCIT v. Vidarbha Infotech Private Limited (ITA No. 76/Nag /2024, order dated 10.02.2025) held as under :- (ii) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.(Tax appeal No. 688 of 2010, decided on 22.04.2013) categorically held: Accordingly, the invocation of section 69C is contrary to law and the addition of Rs. 34,35,000/- deserves to be deleted. Consequently, the provisions of section 115BBE are also not applicable." 9. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the books of accounts of the assessee have neither been rejected nor found to be incorrect or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credible and concrete evidence or explanation to prove that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not genuine or was not in connection with the business of the assessee and has simply on the basis of assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures proceeded to hold that the expenditures so incurred were not genuine and consequently disallowed the same in the hands of the assessee. It is a trite law that presumption, however strong, cannot substitute evidence. This is a classic case where the Assessing Officer has disregarded all the evidence filed during the course of assessment proceedings and has simply on the presumption that the expenditure incurred are not genuine proceeded to disallow the same. The learned CIT(A) has rightly held at Page-14 of his order that it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to bring on record at least some positive evidence to show that the existing manpower employed by the companies was inadequate and not well suited for the job. The Assessing Officer has not brought out how the contracted Companies lacked administrative/technical setup or infrastructure setup to perform the work. It is further trite law that it is open for the assessee....