9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,43,166/- made on account of bogus purchases from Hawala Traders/Parties, by ignoring the fact that the action of the Assessing Officer was based on credible information received from the Maharashtra. Sales Tax Department through DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai that the parties were declared as hawala traders/parties not doing any genuine purchase and sales and were involved in providing only accommodation entries of bogus purchases and the assessee has obtained such entries through bogus bills from three parties?" 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,43,166/- made on account of bogus purchases from three hawala Traders/Parties namel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the year?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in low, Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,43,166/- made on account of bogus purchases from three Hawala Traders/Parties namely, Asian Steel, Mukta Steel and Vishesh Steel Suppliers, without appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of N. K. PROTEINS LTD Vs. Dy. CIT (2016) 292 CTR (Guj.) 354, Dated. 16.01.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that, when the purchases are from bogus suppliers/hawala traders, the entire suspicious purchases are liable to be disallowed?" 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse in not considering that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch case is Shri. Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All), wherein the entire amount of bogus purchases, from five parties, was disallowed and same was also upheld ?" 9. In this case, the tax effect involved is Rs. 28,69,060/-, which is below the prescribed limit as per CBDT's revised circular No. 05 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024, however, this case falls under the exception within the ambit of exceptional clause 3.1 (c) of the CBDT's Circular mentioned above, wherein is stated that the issues of accommodation entry for bogus purchases, the decision to file appeal/SLP shall be taken on merit without regard to the tax effect and the monetary limit. Hence, the appeal u/s 253 of the Act, is being filed before Hon'ble ITAT. 10. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of the Tribunal in Ahmadabad bench in the case of Swetambar Steels Ltd. (supra), was not considered. The Ld.DR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report in the month of the February and thereafter, issues reminder in the month of March and April. He submitted that the relevant period was of being time barring cases, there might be a possibility that the assessing officer could not respond to the reminders of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, she submitted that one more opportunity might be provided to the assessing officer for commenting on the additional evidence filed by the assessee and thereafter matter may be decided by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee had no objection to the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
