Reopening of an income tax assessment requires concrete evidence, not vague information or mere suspicion.

आदेश/Order

Per Krinwant Sahay, AM :

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

2. Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are reproduced as under:

1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 and making an addition of Rs.43,17,081/- on account of alleged bogus purchases from M/s G.S. Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh.

2. That the confirmation of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 43,17,081/- is against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. That the reopening of the case u/s 148 merely on the basis of statement of third party 1.e. supplier is not justified, since there is no other material on record.

4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer/CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no evidencery value can be attached to the statement recorded during search/post search/survey for the purposes of reopening of the case u/s 148.

5. That the Ld.AO/CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that merely on the basis of statement recorded during survey, no valid reopening of the case can be made out.

6. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the confirmation of addition by the CIT(A) in respect of alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 43,17,081/- is not justified.

7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that complete 'stock tally' alongwith confirmation of the party has been submitted and, thus, the sales having not been doubted and, thus, the sustaining of addition of Rs. 43,17,081/- as bogus purchases is not justified and deserves to be deleted.

8. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that all the compliance with regard to GST has been made and, thus, under such circumstances, the addition is not justified.

9. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the binding judgment of Hon'ble Apex and different High Courts and judgment of Jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT, wherein, on similar facts and circumstances, the said addition has been deleted.

10. That the appellant craves leave to add or the amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

3. During the proceedings before us, ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed a brief synopsis, which is reproduced herein under: -

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee on the issue of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 47,17,081/- from one party namely M/s. G.S. Industries Prop. Deepak Sharma as per information gathered after search action conducted u/s 132 at ‘Deepak Sharma Group of Mandi Gobindgarh’, wherein as per the information provided to the assessee, vide order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 03.03.2023. The summary of search result revels that, the assessee has allegedly made bogus purchases from Sh. Deepak Sharma, and no such information have been provided as evident from copy of reasons to believe. The AO relied upon such information without providing and incriminating evidence in the shape of statement, document and some other receipt or documents. The AO made the addition of Rs. 47,17,081/-, without considering the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of Invoices, Books of accounts, stock register, confirmed ledger copies of the parties to whom the sales have been made out of the purchases made from doubtful party namely M/s. G.S. Industries Prop. Deepak Sharma.

2. Before the Ld. CIT(A) a detailed submission was filed but the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in a summary manner, though we had given the evidences of purchases/sales along with delivery of goods.

3. Now, we are in appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal and our brief facts of the cas