TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. Illegal Reassessment Proceeding: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed as it is based solely on unverified third-party "parallel tally data" seized from the premises of another assessee, without any independent enquiry, tangible material or live nexus establishing escapement of income in the hands of the appellant. 2. No Cross Examination Opportunity Provided: That on the facts and in law, whether learned CIT(A) right in confirming the addition done during assessment proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned CIT(A) grossly erred in ignoring the affidavit filed by the appellant affirming on oath that no purchases or cash payments were made to M/s SBL Energy Ltd. This affidavit remained uncontroverted and unchallenged by the Department. 8. Onus to Prove: That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO by shifting the onus to disprove a non-existent purchase on the appellant, even when the Department itself failed to discharge its primary onus of proving that any purchase transaction had actually taken place. 9. General ground: The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds before or at the time of hearing." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an affidavit placed in the paper book at pages 48-50. Secondly, he submitted that the assessee has entered into regular sale transactions with the said party. In support thereof, he referred to the sale invoices, purchase orders issued by M/s.SBL Energy Ltd., e-way bills and the inward register maintained by the assessee. Thirdly, he submitted that no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded by the Ld. AO despite repeated requests made by the assessee. He contended that entries appearing in the records of third party cannot establish the correctness of alleged addition and that the burden of proving the alleged unexplained expenditure lies upon the Revenue. He further submitted that the Ld. AO had not conducted any independent investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the assessee from M/s.SBL Energy Ltd. The only basis for impugned addition is the tally data found during the course of search in the case of M/s. Special Blasts Ltd. group. Ld. AO in the notice issued u/sec. 148 of the Act observed that the said tally data includes a numerous ledger entries and as stated by Mr. Shah Jagrut Vijaykumar Dongaonkar, it solely comprises cash entries and transactions. The details in Annexure A-Parallel Tally "SBLEL-Bogus Purchase" indicate that assessee-Red Ray Laboratories made bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 36,29,200/-. Apart from this information, no other evidence confronted by the Ld. AO to the assessee in support of the allegation for bogus purchases. It is not discernible as to whether Ld. AO h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-examination to the assessee. I find that so far as the facts of the case placed before me are the allegation of Ld. AO is merely based on incomplete information not showing any direct involvement of the assessee of making alleged cash purchase whereas assessee has furnished sufficient evidence to prove that even though it is having regular business transactions with M/s. SBL Energy Ltd. but they are only to the extent of making sales and it has never entered into purchase transactions. Ld. AO has not disputed the book results and had not commented on the purpose of making alleged purchase in cash. Therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view impugned addition for bogus/unaccounted purchases is uncal....