IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2384/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2012-13]

The Dy. C.I.T. Vs. S.S. Pulses Manufacturing Pvt Ltd Delhi 3978, 1^st Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi PAN: AAJCS 0783 J (Appellant) Respondent)

Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld.

CIT(A) dated 08.11.2023 pertaining to A.Y 2012-13.

2. The solitary substantive grievance of the Revenue reads as under:

“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in low the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C amounting to Rs. 2,63,24,977/- in terms of Bogus Purchase to the extent of 12.5% which comes to Rs. 12,90,620/- even when the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases”.

3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard the ld. DR at length who assisted us with the facts of the case and relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. Case records carefully perused and considered. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 17.08.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 80,42,057/-. - The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from the office of the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Karnal, Haryana that during the impugned A.Y, the assessee availed accommodation entries from M/s. Shree Hari Trading Co. & M/s. Subham Agro India through hawala operators in the guise of (bogus) purchases, aggregating to Rs 2,63,24,917/-. In absence of any satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer disallowed entire amount of bogus purchases and vide order 10.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the lncome Tax Act 1961, assessed the income at Rs. 3,43,66,974/- .

5. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the facts on record, came to the conclusion as under:

“4. I have perused the assessment order and the appeal documents. In ground no 1,2 & 3, the assessee challenged the validity of re-opening notice u/s 148 and the reassessment order u/s. 147 of the Act. As already noted, assessee had purchases from the entity involved in issuing bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries. The AO received the information from the investigation wing that the assessee was also one of the beneficiaries. The outcome of investigation of another enforcement department prima facie indicated that income has escaped assessment. The AO accordingly, issued notice u/s 148 on 20.03.2019 after duly considering the information received and recorded his reasons for re-opening by applying his mind independently. The fresh material/information received was sufficient to re-open the case for AY 2012- 13 which was within six years from the end of assessment year. In view of this, the assessee’s plea that the re-opening was invalid is rejected.

During reassessment proceedings, the AO gave an opportunity to the assessee to explain why the bogus purchase of Rs. 1,52,91,807/- from M/s. Shree Hari Trading Co. & of Rs. 1,10,33,110/- from M/s. Subham Agro India should not be disallowed. In response, the assessee submitted that the purchase from the said entity was not accommodation entry and that it was a genuine transaction. However, the assessee failed to buttress his claim and therefore the AO was not satisfied with the reply. Considering the facts and circumstances, the AO disallowed entire bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 2,63,24,917/- and concluded the assessment.

5.0 During the appellate proceedings, hearing notices were issued to file submissions in support of the grounds. However, the assessee did not respond. In the background of the above facts and circumstances, I give my findings. To begin wi