IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “K (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chirag Praful Punatar, vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(4), Kautilya Bhawan, B-901, Aaradhaya One, Mumbai-400020.

Pastom Sagar Road No.1, Chembur West, Mumbai-

400089.

PAN/GIR No: AGPPP9386B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Anil Thakrar (Virtually Present)

Respondent by Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Date of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 10.11.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2009-10.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in confirming a sum of Rs.24,42,955/-under section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act 1961 for Bogus Purchases in spite of the fact that all the details such as copies of invoices, Bank payments made to creditors, sales bills, etc. were submitted.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) is also erred in non-considering the details documents submitted by the Appellant which is evident from the Ld. CIT(A) order for which separate rectification of mistake is being submitted.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in confirming the said addition because all these OLD notices issued under section 142(1)/133(6) were non-complied (OLD

1ST ROUND of ASSESSMENT PROCEDINGS)

4. The appellant request to delete the addition confirmed by the CIT (A).

5. The appellant craves to add, alter or omit any or all of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.5,00,200/-. Based on the information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had taken accommodation bill for purchases, the case was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 10.03.2014. The assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 was passed on 27.02.2015 by adding the entire bogus purchase of Rs.24,42,955/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ITAT, which set aside the order of CIT(A) and the impugned issue was restored to the file of AO for fresh examination. In the second round of assessment, the AO issued various notices which were not properly replied to by the assessee. Hence, the AO again added the entire purchases of Rs.24,42,955/- u/s 69C of the Act. The CIT(A) has extracted the relevant portion of the assessment order and submission of the assessee. However, the appellant again did not provide any details and submissions on merits nor any documentary evidences were provided in respect of purchase bills, sales bills and bank statement, reconciliation statement etc. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee is negligent and is not interested in pursuing the appeal and is deliberately ignoring the appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not been able to submit any evidence to show or controvert the information available or the findings of the AO. The onus was on the assessee to prove the transactions and the facts of its case. The CIT(A) relied on various decisions and finally upheld the addition of Rs.24,42,995/- u/s

69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book giving details of purchases along with name, address of the parties. He submitted that the details and evidences were filed before the AO and CIT(A), but these were not considered in the orders passed by them. He also submitted that the purchases are genuine and hence, the addition made by the AO u/s 69C may be deleted.

5. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR of