IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 DCIT-15(1)(1), Moksh Alloy Private Limited, Room No. 451, 1404, Tulip Regency Gardens, 4th Floor, vs. Sector 6, Aayakar Bhavan, Kharghar, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-410210.

PAN : AAHCM4191J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : Ms. Krupa Gurav For Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09-02-2026

O R D E R

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 13-06-2024, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“A. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the CIT(A) is not bad in law in deleting the additions made by the AO of Rs.83,66,39.954/ on account of bogus purchases, addition made by the AO of Rs. 10,60,34,000/- on account of unsecured loans and Rs. 89,12,635/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) by way of admitting the new evidences without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer for verification as well as verification of those new evidences."

B. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the CIT(A) is bad in law in deleting the additions made by the AO of Rs.83,66,39,954/- on account of bogus purchases on the basis of non- compliance from the respective parties, without proving the actual delivery, transportations, etc. with relevant supporting documentary evidences.."

C. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the CIT(A) is bad in law in not holding that the goods purchased by the assessee in cash through grey market invokes provisions of section

40A(3) and hence, the assessee is not entitled for any relief."

D. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the CIT(A) is not bad in law in deleting the additions made by the AO of Rs.83,66,39,954/-on account of bogus purchases without verifying the corresponding sales."

E. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the CIT(A) is bad in law in deleting the additions made by the AO of Rs. 10,60,34,000/-on account of unsecured loans on the basis of non- compliance from the respective parties, without proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders with supporting documentary evidences.”

F. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the CIT(A) is bad in law in deleting the additions made by the AO of Rs.89,12,635/-on account of non deduction of TDS from the respective transactions, without supporting documentary evidences from the respective parties."

G. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

H. The Appellant craves leave to amend, or alter any grounds or add a new ground. which may be necessary.”

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, vide order dt. 25-06-2021, wherein the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 83,66,39,954/- on account of bogus purchases u/s. 69C of the Act, Rs. 10,60,34,000/- on account of un-explained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and an amount of Rs. 89,12,635/- was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), wherein the addition so made by the AO were directed to be deleted and against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. CIT-DR drawn our reference to the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and it was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had admitted fresh evidences during the appellate proceedings, without giving an opportuni