Suppliers Ignoring Section 133(6) Notices Alone Can’t Make Purchases Bogus: ITAT Gives Fresh Lifeline to Liquor Trader

Ramakant Bhuvan Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)

Suppliers Ignoring Section 133(6) Notices Alone Can’t Make Purchases Bogus: ITAT Gives Fresh Lifeline to Liquor Trader

The Pune ITAT held that merely because suppliers failed to respond to notices issued under section 133(6), the entire purchases cannot automatically be treated as bogus when the assessee possesses substantial documentary evidence proving the transactions.

In the case of Ramakant Bhuvan, a liquor trader, the AO had added ₹3.68 crore as inflated purchases under section 37(1) solely because five out of six liquor suppliers did not respond to notices issued during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that apart from the alleged non-compliance by suppliers, the AO had not pointed out any defect whatsoever in the assessee’s books, stock records or purchase documentation. The assessee had produced purchase invoices, transport permits (Form FL-1A), stock registers, quantitative details certified in Form 3CD, supplier ledger confirmations, bank statements evidencing payments through banking channels and proof of TCS appearing in Form 26AS.

The ITAT further noted that the assessee had also sought admission of additional evidence before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A, but the same was ignored without proper consideration.

Observing that the State Excise Department had also verified the stock movement and that the assessee maintained regular stock-in and stock-out records, the Tribunal held that the authorities ought to have properly examined the documentary evidence instead of mechanically treating the purchases as bogus.

The matter was therefore restored back to the AO for fresh verification after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2022-23.

2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. Ground 3 – The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of purchases without properly appreciating various documents furnished before him i.e. (a) Purchase invoices (b) Excise Transport permits (Form FL – 1A) (c) stock register (d) Quantitative details certified by the tax auditor in Form 3CD (e) suppliers ledger account confirmation. Your appellant respectfully submits that disallowance of purchase from five vendors is not called for on proper appreciation of the above documents.

2. Ground 4 – The ld. CIT(A) has erred sustaining the disallowance without taking into consideration the appellants explanation as regards the discrepancies pointed out by the ld. AO. Your appellant respectfully submits that the discrepancies pointed out by the Id. AO are fully explained and hence disallowance of purchases is unjustified.

3. Ground 5 – The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of purchases to the extent of Rs. 36843991 inter-alia on the ground that suppliers of goods have not responded to notice u/s. 133 (6) issued during the course of assessment proceedings. Your appellant respectfully submits that disallowance of purchases due to non-compliance by the suppliers to notice u/s. 133 (6) is unjustified.

4. Ground 1 – The ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring various additional evidences furnished before him during the course of appellate proceedings. He has further erred in not referring these additional evidences to the ld. AO for his comments on merit despite the fact that the discrepancies referred to in the assessment order were not communicated to the appellant by the Id. AO in the show cause notice and the time allowed to respond to show cause notice was only four working days. Your appellant respectfully submits that the Id. CIT(A) should have considered all the additional evidences and called for the remand report from the ld. AO before deciding various grounds raised before him.

5. Ground 2 – The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal without granting the appellants written request for an opportunity to further explain/ argue its case through video conference. Your appellant respectfully submits that the Id. CIT(A) should have granted an opportunity to the appellant to further explain / argue its case through video conference.”

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in liquor business and has furnished its return of income for the year under consideration by declaring income of Rs.29,72,490/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, vide order dated 18.03.2024 the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of the assessee at Rs.3,98,16,481/- as against the income of Rs.29,72,490/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.3,68,43,991/- on account of inflated purchases (not confirmed by the sellers) u/s 37(1) of the IT Act.

4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper books furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act to six persons who sold liquor to the assessee for the year under consideration to verify the purchases shown by the assessee. Only one person responded and five persons of them not replied therefore, the Assessing Officer treated purchases of Rs.3,68,43,991/- made from them as unverified & accordingly added the same to the income of the assessee as inflated purchases. The above action of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

7. In this regard, we find that the Assessing Officer nowhere in his assessment order points out any other defect or discrepancy in the records maintained by the assessee except the fact of unresponsive behaviour of five parties in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act, who sold the goods to the assessee during the year under consideration. We further find that the assessee also made a request before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules for admission of additional evidences in support of purchases entered in the regular books of accounts which are audited u/s 44AB of the IT Act, however, the same was not considered for the reasons best known to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. We also find that the assessee is in possession of all the purchase vouchers/invoices and TCS was also collected by the purchasers which is appearing in Form 26AS for the period under consideration. We find that the assessee has produced signed ledger confirmation from all the five sellers along with copy of invoices and transport permits even bank accounts statements showing the payment through banking channels to the concerned five parties are also forming part of the paper books furnished before us. It was also contended before us that two invoices issued by Raigad Wines were dated 30.03.2021, however, the goods were actually received by the assessee in the first week of April, 2021 and therefore the purchases were accounted for in the books of accounts of assessment year 2022-23. It was also the contention that the stock registers are properly maintained and stock in and stock out is regularly entered which is duly verified by State Excise Department.

8. We find force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the action of the Assessing Officer as well as of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified since each and every documents to prove the purchases was available with the assessee and was also produced before both the subordinate authorities. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a limited direction to decide the issue of purchases afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, evidences, submissions in support of its contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 11^th day of May, 2026.