Sonu Dharmichand Bafna vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat on 27 September, 2023
AGR Investment Vs
Additional Commissioner 197 Taxman 177
(Delhi) and Chuharmal Vs CIT [1998] 38
Taxman 190 (SC). 14. On the other hand,
the ld.AR of the assessee submits that he
has challenged the validity of reopening as
well as restricting the addition to the extent
of 12.50% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The ld.AR of the assessee submits during
the assessment, the AO has not made any
independent investigation. The AO reopened
the case of the assessee on the basis of third
party information without making any
preliminary investigation. The AO received
vague information about providing
accommodation entry by Bhanwarlal Jain
Group. No specific information about the
accommodation entry obtained by assessee
was received by AO. There is no live link
between the reasons recorded qua the
assessee. Therefore, the re-opening is
invalid and all subsequent action is liable to
be set aside. 15. On account of additions of
bogus purchases, the ld.AR submits that in
the original assessment, the assessee filed
Page 11 of 20
Downloaded on : Wed Oct 04 20:30:37 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/656/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
its complete details of purchases to prove
the genuineness of expenses. The AO
accepted the same in the assessment order
passed under section 143(3) on 10.03.2009.
During re-assessment, the assessee again
furnished complete details about the
genuineness of purchases. The assessee
filed confirmation purchases invoices,
accounts of the parties, bank statement of
assessee showing transaction to the banking
channel. The AO has not made any comment
on the documentary evidence furnished by
assessee. The AO solely relied upon the
statement of third party and the report of
Investigation Wing. The report of wing and
the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain were not
provided to the assessee. The AO has not
disputed the sales of assessee. No sale is
possible in absence of purchase. The books
of accounts were not rejected. The AO made
the disallowance of entire purchases. The
assessing officer not provided cross
examination of the alleged hawala dealers.
The disallowances sustained by the Ld.
CIT(A) @ 12.5% of the impugned purchases,
is on higher side and deserve to be deleted
in total. The ld.AR of the assessee submits
that entire purchases shown by assessee are
genuine. In without prejudice and
alternative submissions, the Ld. AR for the
assessee submits that in alternative
submission, the disallowance may be
sustained on reasonable basis. To support
his various submission, the ld.AR for the
assessee is relied upon case laws: