Sushil Rice & General Mills Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
CIT(A) Confirmed Bogus Purchase Addition Without Examining Books—ITAT Sets Aside Order; Entire Matter Remanded for Fresh Adjudication
The Assessee filed appeal against the CIT(A)/NFAC order dated 22.02.2024 upholding reassessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s.144B for AY 2013-14. The appeal before ITAT was delayed by fourteen days; after considering the condonation petition explaining difficulty in handing papers to counsel and delay in depositing appeal fee, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
On the date of hearing, the Assessee sought adjournment citing counsel’s viral fever supported by a doctor’s certificate. The Tribunal noted repeated adjournment requests and proceeded ex-parte. The Revenue submitted that reopening was based on information from the Investigation Wing that the Assessee had taken accommodation entries from entry operator Shri Hitesh Jain, resulting in bogus purchase addition of ₹1,43,59,876. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition solely on the basis of the Investigation Wing report.
The Tribunal observed that before the CIT(A), the Assessee had filed complete sales and purchase details along with books of account, but the CIT(A) did not examine invoices, books, or evidences, and upheld the addition merely because the name of an entry provider appeared in the Investigation Wing records. Since the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate either the reopening issue or the merits of the bogus purchase allegation in the correct legal manner, the ITAT held that the matter required fresh and proper appellate evaluation.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) to examine all evidences—books, invoices, genuineness of purchases, and reopening grounds—after granting adequate opportunity to the Assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
