VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner (hereafter the assessee) has filed the present petition impugning an assessment order dated 26.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of the Assessment Year 2022-23 relevant to the Previous Year 2021-22. Although the assessee has an efficacious remedy of an appeal, the assessee seeks to pursue the present petition confining the challenge to the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. The Assessing Officer has added a sum of ₹70,10,37,475/- (Rupees Seventy Crores Ten Lacs Thirty-seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-five Only) to the total income as declared by the assessee, as unexplained Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. In addition, the Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act for concealment of income. The controversy essentially relates to the declaration of the purchases made by the assessee during the Previous Year 2021-22. The assessee was called upon to submit the details of the same and had done so. It is the assessee’s case that its entire purchases were imports and details of the same were provided. However, the Assessing Officer found that the said declaration was incorrect and the assessee had not disclosed the purchases made in entirety. The addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act is in respect of the quantum of purchases allegedly concealed by the petitioner.

3. The assessee had disclosed purchases amounting to ₹1,51,41,55,705/- (Rupees Hundred and Fifty-one Crores, Forty-one Lacs Fifty-five Thousand Seven Hundred & Five Only) and the same were duly reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee. However, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has made purchases for a value of ₹2,21,51,93,180/- (Rupees Two Hundred Twenty-one Crores Fifty-one Lacs Ninety-three Thousand & One Hundred Eight Only). The Assessing Officer based the said conclusion entirely on the information received from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (hereafter CBIC) to the effect that the goods purchased / imported by the assessee during the relevant Previous Year were of ₹2,21,51,93,180/-.

4. The assessee had contested the said information. It had demanded the details of the imports made by it which were allegedly concealed. The assessee claims that the said details were not provided and therefore it had no opportunity to effectively respond to the said allegation. The assessee’s grievance is that the Assessing Officer had proceeded to frame the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed assessment, without affording the assessee the opportunity to effectively contest the ground on which the addition was made.

5. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to make an addition without referring to the details of the imports allegedly concealed by the assessee.

6. The relevant extract of the impugned order reads as under:

“3) CBIC import data :

Assessee has submitted that it has not made the purchases of Rs. 221,51,93,180 as informed by the CBIC. Assessee has submitted details of purchase which contains details of only Rs. 151,41,55,705 worth imports made which it has shown in its books. Assessee has not given any reconciliation or explanation with regard to remaining amount of imports worth

70,10,37,475 Assessee’s explanation can not be acceptable.

CBIC has provided month wise data wherein it has clearly reported that goods worth Rs. 221,51,93,180 have been imported.

Indian Customs department is Apex body which deals with all the imports made and keep tab of every single import entry.

The data is shared by Apex body which deals with the imports and hence its authenticity is unquestioned.

Hence, it has been concluded that assessee has not shown