Leela Greenship Recycling (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 471/ 180 taxmann.com 407 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Alleged bogus purchases-Produced documentary evidence such as purchase invoices, stock records, RTGS payments, GST returns, supplier confirmations, and segment-wise accounts-Matter was remanded back to the AO to obtain the bank account details of MT Co., and verify whether there exists any cash trail; if no such cashback trail is established upon verification, and payments are found to have remained within the banking system, then the addition is to be restricted only to the embedded profit element @ 5 per cent. [S. 145]

Held that the Assessee furnished complete books of accounts, bank statements, stock records, purchase invoices, GST returns, supplier confirmations, and segmentwise financials and the AO having not brought any independent material on record to disprove these documents or trace any cash withdrawals after payments, the entire purchases made by the assessee from MT Co. cannot be treated as bogus merely because the latter was found to be non-existent entity during GST enquiry in later years; matter is remanded back to the AO to obtain the bank account details of MT Co., and verify whether there exists any cash trail; if no such cashback trail is established upon verification, and payments are found to have remained within the banking system, then the addition is to be restricted only to the embedded profit element @ 5 per cent. Distinguished, PCIT v. Shree Ganesh Developers  (2025) 172 taxmann.com 542 /476 ITR 568  / 344 CTR 152 (Bom)(HC), N.K. Industries Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2016)  72 taxmann.com 289 (Guj)(HC) (AY. 2018-19)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*