| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5464/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gold Ancher Exim Private Limited Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assist

11th Floor, Satra Residency Vs ant Commissioner of Income Ahimsa Marg, Khar West Tax/Income-tax Officer, Mumbai - 400052 National Faceless Assessment [PAN: AACCG3982E] Centre, Delhi अपीलाथ(cid:22)/ (Appellant) (cid:23)(cid:24) यथ(cid:22)/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Panjabi, A/R Revenue by : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: /01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated

20/08/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2013-14.

2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:-

“1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre ["the CIT(A)"] erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant for non-prosecution of the appeal.

2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the re-assessment proceedings.The notice issued for re-opening of assessment under section 148, the re-opening of assessment under section 147, the reassessment proceedings and also the reassessment order are illegal, invalid and unjustified.

3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings which was conducted without the issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Hence, the re-assessment proceedings and also the re-assessment order are ab-inito void and bad in law.

4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,86,09,257 made by the AO under section 69C of the Act. In doing so, the learned CIT(A) ignored the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the Appellant's own case.

5. The Appellant craves leave to add to, to alter or to amend the above grounds of appeal.”

3. Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

4. The reasons for reopening the assessment as extracted in the body of the assessment order, read as under:-

“Return of Income for A.Y.2013-14 declaring total income of Rs.7,21,850/- was e- filed on 02.09.2013. Thereafter, assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on

16.10.2017 accepting the total income at Rs. 42,98,007/-.

2. The assesse company is a trader in textile. In this case assessment was reopened for examining the genuineness of assessee's claim of bogus purchases during the F.Y. 2012-13 aggregating to Rs. 2,86,09,257/- with respect to parties who appeared to be hawala dealers as per the verification from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The facts were also confirmed from the website of Sales Tax Department and as per the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai report of 26.12.2013 that the parties were involved in issuing hawala sales bills without supplying goods and that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of such hawala transactions.

2.1. Further, on perusal of records, it is noticed that the reasons recorded in the order for reopening the assessee case were made on the aforesaid facts and since the case was not subject to scrutiny assessment for the said period necessary evidences were called for. It was seen that the assessment proceedings concluded with well- established facts that the assessee was neither able to substantiate the claim of bogus purchases of Rs. 2,86,09,257/- with relevant documentary evidences nor the concerned parties (hawala dealers) could be traceable. Thus the onus of proof for genuineness of the purchases failed to be discharged by the assessee. Further, reliance was also placed on decisions (1) to record that even payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct to prove the transaction as genuine and in this case there is uncontroverted evidence from an impeccable source (Maharashtra Sales Tax Department) which has the primary duty of taxing a purchase