Surinder Kumar Chhabra Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi remands case – ₹34.82 lakh alleged bogus purchases to be re-examined; CIT(A)’s non-speaking order set aside; Non-Speaking Order Set Aside – ITAT Remands Bogus Purchase Addition for Fresh Review; ITAT: Right to Cross-Examination Vital in Bogus Purchase Allegations; eopening Upheld, But Addition Needs Re-Examination – ITAT Finds CIT(A) Order Non-Speaking
Assessee appealed against the order of NFAC, Delhi (CIT(A)) confirming addition of ₹34,82,667 as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C.
AO had reopened assessment u/s 147 based on Investigation Wing information alleging that Assessee obtained accommodation entries from M/s Jai Shiv Enterprises, an entity linked to Sh. Pritam Singh group, known for providing bogus bills. AO concluded that purchases were non-genuine & made an addition of ₹34.82 lakh.
Before the CIT(A), Assessee argued that (i) reassessment after 4 years was invalid; (ii) reopening was based solely on third-party statements; (iii) no cross-examination of the alleged entry operator was allowed; & (iv) all bills & payments were genuine. However, the CIT(A) summarily upheld the AO’s order, merely reproducing Investigation Wing findings without examining the Assessee’s evidence or submissions.
ITAT found that CIT(A)’s order was non-speaking, lacking any analysis of evidence or reasoning for rejecting Assessee’s contentions. It noted that the right to cross-examine is vital when third-party statements form the sole basis of addition, especially when specifically sought by the taxpayer.
