IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year :2009-10 Asst. Commissioner of Vs. The Official Liquidator Income Tax in the case of M/s.

Circle 6(1)(2), Asian Electronics Ltd., Mumbai 5^th Floor, Bank of India Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 PAN/GIR No.AABCA0832C (Appellant) .. (Respondent Assessee by Shri Mangesh Thakore Revenue by Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 / O R D E R आदेश PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 28/06/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 for the A.Y.2009-10.

2. The only ground raised by the Revenue is that ld. CIT(A) was not correct in directing the ld. AO for restricting the addition of 25% with regard to bogus purchases.

3. The brief facts are that in this case original return was filed u/s.139(1) on 30/09/2009 declaring ‘Nil’ income. Assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) on 30/12/2011 assessing the total income at Nil after allowing deduction u/s.80IC and book profit of Rs.12,04,52,123/-. Thereafter, assessee’s case was reopened u/s.147 and notice u/s.148 was issued on 18/02/2013 on the ground that there was an information received from DGIT(Inv.) that assessee had made purchases of Rs.23,31,57,521/- from the following two parties:-

4. This information was received from Sales Tax department and accordingly, ld. AO had reason to belief that income to the tune of Rs.23,31,57,521/- had escaped assessment. The ld. AO simply based on the information received, has made the entire addition of the purchases. Whereas, the case of the assessee was that it has furnished the copies of ledger account, purchase bills, delivery challans, corresponding sales alongwith VAT etc., The ld.AO has confirmed the addition on the ground that production of invoice and delivery challan is not relevant and assessee has not furnished the confirmation from the said parties. Further simply making the purchases through account payee cheques from the books, the source of which has been shown in the books is not sufficient. Apart from that assessee has not produced the parties before the ld. AO. After detailed discussion he has made the entire addition of bogus purchases not only of Rs.23,31,57,521/- but also purchases of Rs.18,54,96,002/- made from Siddhi Vinayak Traders and accordingly, addition of Rs.41,86,53,520/- was made. He also made alternate addition by holding that it is an undisclosed investment.

5. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases of Rs.41,86,53,523/- and has restricted addition to Rs.10,46,86,380/-.

6. We have heard ld. DR and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order. The entire premise of the addition which had been made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained purchases of Rs.41,86,53,523/- is based on information received from Sales Tax department rooted through DGIT(Inv) that two parties namely Siddhi Enterprises and Saileela Trading Pvt. Ltd., were indulged in providing accommodation entries and assessee is one of the beneficiaries. Based on this, case was reopened u/s.147. Before the ld. AO, assessee furnished ledger accounts, bank statement, delivery challan, corresponding sales and tax invoices. The ld. AO has rejected these documents holding that ledger accounts are own prepared documents and delivery challan does not mention any truck, lorry number or any other mode of transportation. Apart from that, he had also stated that assessee had not provided the present address. Even the VAT bill and VAT assessment has not been treated to be a material evidence by the ld. AO. Simply based on the information of the Sales Tax depar