आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is directed against the order dated 11.09.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 27.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. Ground No. 1

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in not appreciating that the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 despite the expiry of the time limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, in a case where an assessment had already been completed u/s 143(3) is bad in law and deserves to be annulled as time-barred.

2. Ground No. 2

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in not considering that the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 was initiated merely on account of a "change of opinion" or for conducting "further enquiry" on facts that were already available and duly examined during the original assessment u/s 143(3). Therefore, the re-opening is invalid and liable to be quashed.

3. Ground No. 3

Without prejudice to Grounds 1 and 2, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in disregarding the detailed submissions placed on record and in treating genuine purchases amounting to Rs. 6,86,16,409/- as bogus, thereby making an unjustified and unwarranted disallowance. The said disallowance deserves to be deleted.

4. Ground No. 4

Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in making an addition of the entire purchase value instead of restricting the addition, if any, only to the profit element embedded therein. The excessive and unreasonable addition therefore requires to be deleted.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and income of Rs.34,77,401/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 filed on 29.09.2011. Case selected for regular complete scrutiny and various details called for by the Assessing Officer were submitted in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. Assessment u/s.143(3) completed on 14.02.2014 accepting the returned income. Thereafter, notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on 30.03.2018 for reopening of the assessment. The assessee raised objections which were disposed off. Assessee filed return in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act declaring same income as was declared in the original return. Main reason for reopening was to examine the purchases made from three parties which as per the Assessing Officer are allegedly engaged in providing accommodation entries. Assessee furnished all the details about the purchases made from the three parties out of which purchases against H Form were made from the two parties namely Akshata Enterprises and Sangam Enterprises and purchase of tax free textiles were made from the third party namely Citybase Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Assessee also contended that all the goods have been exported. However, ld. Assessing Officer without disputing the gross turnover including exports, concluded the proceedings making addition for bogus/inflated purchases and assessed income at Rs.7,20,93,809/-. Aggrieved assesee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4. We first take up legal issue raised in Ground No. 1 and Ground No.2. Assessee raised the legal issue challenging the validity of reopening proceedings carried out beyond four years stating that it is a mere change of opinion as the assessee has truly and fully disclosed all material facts in the return as well as details have been filed in the regular scrutiny proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act and there being no independent investigation or new information available with the Assessing Officer which could show that assessee has not disclosed the same in the income tax return and previous assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act.

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee mad