IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE]

ITA No.19/DDN/2025 [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.12.2024 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10235798 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 15.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year

2018-19.

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 15.08.2018, declaring total income at INR 5,81,560/-.

The case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2022, in response to which the assessee filed return of income on 03.05.2022, declaring same income as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued followed by notices u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaires. In response filed replies from time to time. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, AO completed the assessment vide order dated 15.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein the total income was assessed at INR 54,23,320/-.

3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 04.12.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:-

1. “That the appellant is engaged in the business of ‘Rice Milling', i.e.

manufacturing of Rice, Rice Bran & Paddy Husk out of hulling of Paddy. The Rice Mill unit is under Proprietorship constitution, of which appellant, Atul Kumar Agarwal, having PAN: AAOPA9970H, is Proprietor.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in confirming the addition of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 48,41,760/- u/s 69C which was made merely relying on the statement of the party (alleged entry operator), without making any independent enquiry or finding any corroborative evidence in this regard.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO without appreciating the fact that the Appellant produced all invoices of purchases, the ledger of the party concerned, bank statements (extracts)

evidencing payment through RTGS/NEFT, Goods Receipts & thereby discharging his primary onus of proving the transaction to be genuine.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in not appreciating that the Ld. AO has not discharged its burden of proof as the Ld. AO has neither pointed out a single error or discrepancy in documents/evidences the submitted by the Appellant nor conducted any independent investigation.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 48,41,760/- being 100% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 48,41,760/-merely on surmises and conjectures.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in not appreciating the fact that the alleged bogus purchases constituted only a meagre 7% of the total purchases (of raw material & trading items) of the Appellant.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in confirming the addition of 100% of the alleged bogus pu