ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ’CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 dated 21.01.2025.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal without allowing opportunity of virtual hearing as required under the provision of section 250(2) r.w.s 250(6B).

2. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.44,90,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.

3. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in holding that the appellant has not discharged the rigors of section 68 of the Act.

4. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.1,00,85,621/- on account of purchases made from M/s Impex Ferro Tech Ltd.

5. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in relying on the report of the Investigation Wing and that too without confronting the appellant with the same.

6. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in drawing adverse inference against one Vijay Kumar Jain and Naresh Jain without confronting the appellant with the document on the basis of which such adverse inference has been drawn.

7. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in relying on the judicial precedents while sustaining the additions of Rs.44,90,000/- and Rs.1,00,85,621/- respectively which are distinguishable on facts.

8. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in upholding invocation of section 115BBE in respect of addition of Rs.44,90,000/-.

9. For that sustenance of additions of Rs.44,90,000/- and Rs.1,00,85,621/- by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case.

10. For that other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.

”

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who runs a firm in the name and style of M/s. Sri Sanwaria Traders which deals in iron trading. The assessee had filed his return of income showing total income of ₹52,54,360/- from business and other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short ’CASS’) and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee made part compliance. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. ’AO’) noted that the assessee’s total turnover was ₹47,45,28,051/- and the total purchase declared were for ₹46,93,27,612/- and the assessee had declared GP and NP of ₹1,32,19,360/- and ₹48,65,080/-, respectively against his declared turnover. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the genuineness of the transactions uploaded through STR functionality, identities of the parties related with transactions and whether the assessee had shown correct income in the income tax return. On perusal of the report from ADIT (Inv.), Kolkata a shell company namely M/s. Impex Ferro Tech Ltd. controlled by entry operator Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, could not be found at its registered address and was found as shell entity in the Department database, which was involved in providing bogus billings to various genuine entities through routing of unaccounted income and in this case, had provided the assessee bogus billings of ₹85,42,500/- during AY 2021-22. As per the ledger copy of the company M/s. Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., the total purchases of the assessee were ₹1,00,85,621/-, the genuineness of which could not be established by the assessee; therefore, the Ld. AO added back the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AO further noted that the assessee had declared unsecured loans taken from various persons/entities to the tune of ₹1,48,84,000/- whereas as per the audit report, the assessee had taken unsecured loans of ₹69,9