, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 &

1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16)

DCIT Vs. M/s Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN :AACCR0773N]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri S.K.Gupta, AR रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing: 12/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of 11/03/2025 Pronouncement:

/ ORDER आदेश PER BENCH :

These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against orders dated 26.07.2024, 20.08.2024 and 21.08.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi pertaining to A.Y.2018-19, 2014-

15 and 2015-16.

2. The Revenue has raised more or less common grounds of appeal both for the A.Y.2014-15 and 2015-16. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for the A.Y.2014-15 are reproduced as under :

1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and facts by holding purchases made from M/s Jagannath Agro to the tune of Rs.2,36,00,792/- as genuine.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee company did not provide confirmations called for from M/s Jagannath Agro to confirm authenticity of transactions.

3. Further, Ld.CIT(A) ignored the statement on oath given by Shri Shhailabh Khandelwal wherein he admitted that M/s Jagannath Agro provided accommodation entries on commission by bogus sales which includes receiving payments through banking channels and giving back cash to parties. He also stated that M/s Jagannath Agro does not have any real business.

4. Any other grounds that may arise during the hearing will be submitted before Hon’ble ITAT with kind permission.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Rohini Minerals Private Limited is engaged in the business of production and sale of poultry feeds. The assessee has filed its return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 30.09.2014, declaring total income of Rs.9,08,72,987/-. The assessment has been subsequently, reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the reasons recorded, as per which, the information available with the department reveals that during the F.Y.2013-14, relevant to A.Y.2014-15, the assessee had made purchases to the tune of Rs.2,20,81,719/- from M/s Jagannath Agro Ltd. and such financial transaction has been reported to be bogus in nature, therefore, notice u/s 148A was issued and called upon the assessee to file objections, if any for proposed reassessment. Further upon consideration of the objections, if any filed by the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) dated 28.07.2022 was passed, as a consequence, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee had filed return of income on 25.08.2022, declaring total income at Rs.9,08,72,987/-.

4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“the AO”) noticed that the assessee has made purchases to the tune of Rs.2,36,00,792/- from M/s Jagannath Agro Ltd. To support the purchases from the above party in the backdrop of information available with the department, the AO called upon the assessee to file relevant evidences. In response, the assessee filed purchase bills along with lorry receipts to prove the genuineness of purchases and also filed relevant bank statement and argued that the payment against purchases has been made through proper banking channels. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of relevant details, submitted by the assessee, observed that in some transport receipts, name of the consigner and consignee are missing. Although the assessee claims to have made payment through banking channel, but, mere payment through cheque