9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 021 as the time frame set out for response to notice cum draft assessment order was extremely narrow and also the assessee's request for time extension on account of lockdown in entire city till 26/04/2021 was being ignored by the learned assessing officer and thereby failing the law of natural justice while framing the assessment order. 3. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition under section 69C in respect Of entire purchases instead of restricting the addition/disallowance to reasonable percentage of alleged bogus purchases in accordance with Law. 4. That the leaned assessing officer has erred for disallowing whole purchases by invoking section 69C - arbitrarily without rejecting books of accounts and without doubting the sales. And also when during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted the copies of invoices for purchases, GSTR-3B, GSTR-1 and GSTR-2A. And honorable CIT(A), Raipur has been erred for confirming the action of learned assessing officer. 5. That on the fact. and circumstances of the case, the honorable CIT(A) has been erred for the order of learned assessing officer without properly appreciating the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2021 and 07.09.2022, however, a requested for adjournment in the matter was sought on 10.11.2022 to fix the matter sometimes in the month of January 2023, which was considered by the Ld. CIT(A), but in subsequent opportunities to represent provided to the assessee on 29.11.2023, 27.12.2023, 15.01.2024 and 16.02.2024, the assessee remain absent, with no further request for adjournment and despite several opportunities there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Under such circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) deliberated upon the issue in the present case, and have decided the matter against the assessee, with the following observations: Decision on merits:- 3.1 Ground No.l to 6: - Ground No. 1 to 6 are related to the same issue, hence theses grounds are being discussed together. Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 1,23,97,06,013/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has shown total purchases of Rs. 1,23,97,06,013/- and total sales of Rs. 1,24,33,22,731/- Vide notice u/s 142(1) dt.23.12.2020, the assessee was requested to provide the details of purchases/sales made along with the details of transportation i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajesh Traders purchases of Rs. 9,50,250/- have been made against which the assessee has shown purchases of Rs. 5,94,052/- only. The seller has furnished copies of ITRs filed for the assessment year 2017-18 & 2018-19. The information furnished by Royal Enterprises is incomplete as the purchases amount has not been confirmed and only copy of ITR filed for the assessment year 2018-19 has been furnished. Vide notice u/s 142(1) dt.25.02.2021, the assessee was requested to furnish confirmation from all the parties from whom purchases have been made alongwith copy of ITRs filed to prove the genuineness of the purchases made. In reply dt.09.03.2021 the assessee stated as under: "Since more than two years, we have closed all our business activity due to my health issue and unfavorable business circumstances. Hence at present we have no direct contacts with any party. Further the details called are very voluminous, it will take some more time to collect the same." Further vide reply dt.15.03.2021, the assessee stated as under: "We are enclosing the digitally signed copy of Form No. 2A downloaded from the site of GSTIN for your kind perusal. Your honor will appreciate the facts that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has not produced any evidence that the purchases made were genuine. As per the audit report the assessee has purchased 33228MT of iron & steel and 16189 bags of cement and sold the same without any closing stock but no transportation charges have been claimed to have been paid either as buyer or as seller. In the balance sheet the assessee has created sundry creditors of Rs. 1,15,80,50,651/- and sundry debtors of Rs. 1,15,36,65,608/- Further, as per the e-filling portal no ITR/Audit Report has been filed by the assessee for subsequent assessment years. The assessee has filed ITR with huge turnover of Rs. 1,24,33,22,731/- in the first year of business and no further ITRs have been filed. The assessee has even not filed his annual GSTR till date. As per information available the Directorate General Goods and Services (DGGST), Raipur has detected that the firm M/s Shree Shyam Sales Corporation run by Sh. Santosh Aggarwal and Sh Ayush Garg has committed fraud by using fake invoices issued by non-existent firms to claim ineligible input tax credit of GST. Also, more than 100 dealers of the state have been found to have done bogus transaction with M/S Shyam Sales Corporation. Fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... borne by the seller/purchasers themselves. The copy of annual return of GST was also not filed during assessment proceedings and copy of GSTR2A was not furnished by the assessee. While the assessee was requested to produce the evidence regarding loading/unloading expenditure, the assessee stated that the labourers have been employed on monthly payment basis for the purpose of loading/unloading of materials. However, no evidence regarding the payments actually made have been furnished. The assessee in his reply dt.27.01.2021 has stated that the labourers in the ordinary course either don't have the bank account or are reluctant to accept payment through banking channel and all the payments to them have been made in cash. As per section 40A(3) of the l.T. Act 1961 amended by the Finance Act, 2017 the limit of cash payment has been reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. The labourers were employed on monthly basis on contract, the assessee was required to deduct tax on the payments made as the payment made to each labourer exceeds as per the ledger furnished and also was required to deduct PF from the monthly payment made to employees and contribute an equal amount but no such deduction/contrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is dismissed. 3.2 Ground No. 7: - This ground of appeal is general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 4. In the result, appeals are dismissed. 4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), the matter is carried by way of an appeal before this tribunal, the same is adjudication in the present case. 5. At the outset, before starting on the merits, Ld. AR, referring to ground no. 2 of the present appeal have submitted that, the order u/s 143(3) was passed on 23.04.2021, for which a show cause notice/draft assessment order (DIN:ITBA/AST/F/143(3)(SCN)/2021-22/1032520331(1) was issued on 19.04.2021 (04:41 PM), copy of the same is placed before us at page no. 36-41 of the APB. In the said communication, assessee was requested to submit response through registered e-filing account at www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in by 23:59 hours of 21.04.2021, on the following matters: (a) accept the proposed modification; or (b) file your written reply objecting to the proposed modification; or (c) if required, you may request for personal hearing so as to make oral submissions or present your case after filing of written reply. On approval of the reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... saying that though compliance date was 16th December, 2022, scrutiny order was passed on 23rd December, 2022 after 11 days and assessee did not comply till then, demonstrates that there is no basis for curtailment of the response time. 5. For reasons aforesaid we set aside and quash impugned assessment order and demand, both dated 23rd December, 2022. The show cause notice is restored for being replied to. Assessee is to answer by 20th July, 2023, failing which scrutiny order dated 23rd December, 2022 culminating in impugned assessment order and demand will all stand automatically restored. (ii) M/s Gemini Film Circuit vs the Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ ITO/ Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi, W. P. No. 354 OF 2022 AND W.M.P. No. 395 of 2022, dated 17.10.2023, In the High Court of judicature at Madras. 6. The respondent/Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice calling for the petitioner's reply and the same was served on the petitioner only through online portal on 11.09.2021, which falls on Saturday and time stipulated for filing reply was 16.09.2021, i.e. only five days, within which time, no assessee could file an effective repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to issue show cause notice, which was dated 11.09.2021 and the same falls on Saturday, and by means of the said show cause notice, the petitioner was granted only a short span of time i.e. 5 days, and excluding the Sunday, which is a holiday, only three working days was given for filing their reply/objections. At any costs, it does not merit on the aspect of providing due opportunity. The petitioner should have been provided at least 21 days initially for filing their reply, unless and until, sufficient time is granted to the petitioner, they will not be in position to file their effective reply. Though in the present case, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Appellate Authority by way of an Appeal, still the Appellate Authority is not conferred with such power to remand the matter before the Assessing Officer. 6.5 Further, even under the Scheme of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner is entitled to have two occasions of the matter to be adjudicated by two Authorities and thereby, to avail two well considered opinion, in the present case, due to the failure on the part of the respondent/Assessing Officer to provide real opportunity, which the Act intends to pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the revenue. Therefore, the orders to be passed by the Assessing Officer should always be a speaking order, safeguarding both the interest of the assessee and the Revenue. 6.9. On the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of assessment. 8. Based on aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that the matter in the present case deserves to be set aside for fresh adjudication to the files of Ld. AO, afording the assessee to represent its case in accordance with law. 9. Ld. CIT-DR, representing the revenue, on the other hand strongly supported the orders of revenue authorities and have requested to sustain the same, considering the assessee's careless and noncompliant behaviour before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). It is further submitted that the assessee should not be rewarded by setting aside the matter, specially in a case of an assessee against which the Directorate General Goods and Services (DGGST), Raipur has detected that the firm M/s Shree Shyam Sales Corporation run by Sh. Santosh Aggarwal and Sh Ayush Garg has committed fraud by using fake invoices issued by nonexistent firms to claim ineligible input tax credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company vide notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was unreasonably short, and thus, violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court in the aforementioned case had quashed both the order passed by the A.O. u/s 148A(d) of the Act, dated 04.04.2022 and the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 05.04.2022, and set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee/petitioner. For the sake of clarity, the observations of Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: "5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the above referred to documents/Annexures and other material available with due care. 6. From perusal of the documents/Annexures, it appears that the order dated 4.4.2022 (Annexure P2) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed with regard to a transaction which occurred in the financial year 2014 15 after serving a notice dated 25.3.2022 (Annexure P1) and giving a mere 7 days' time to the Petitioner/assessee to furnish a reply to the said notice. The time granted to the Petitioner/assessee to subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
