Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 844 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - genuineness of the purchase transactions has been flagged by the AO, by referring to the information which has not been supplied to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- AO did not consider bank statements and tax invoices to be relevant evidence. Furthermore, a perusal of the petitioner’s reply dated 21.03.2023 would show that, although the petitioner furnished certain pieces of information to demonstrate that the transactions undertaken were genuine, the same were not considered by the AO. One such example is a piece of evidence concerning the production of the ledger account of the sellers which appears in petitioner’s books of account.
Petitioner placed on record documents to demonstrate that the transactions have been made through a banking channel. For example, in its reply the petitioner attached bank statements demonstrating payment made to the concerned parties.
It appears that the petitioner has also placed on record the tax invoices and e-way bills.
Despite these documents having been placed by the petitioner/assessee before the AO, the AO concluded that the petitioner had nothing to submit by way of a proper explanation regarding the transactions in issue.
If AO had material to demonstrate that the sellers were dubious or non-existent, that material/information should have been put to the petitioner.
Having failed to do so, in our opinion, the defence of the petitioner, in a sense, got compromised. Also there is reference to the non-existence of the vehicle No. HR99ACH0410. If the AO had relevant information based on which he concluded that the said vehicle did not exist, that information should have also been put to the petitioner. Thus the best way forward would be to set aside the impugned order, with liberty to AO to pass a fresh order.