ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Deletion of ₹4.98 Crore Addition for Non-Filing Suppliers as Assessee Furnished Complete Evidence [Read Order]
On appeal, the CIT(A) verified that the assessee had submitted complete records, including ledger accounts, invoices, payment vouchers, and GST returns.
![ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Deletion of ₹4.98 Crore Addition for Non-Filing Suppliers as Assessee Furnished Complete Evidence [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/09/10/2085171-itat-patna-taxscan.webp "ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Deletion of ₹4.98 Crore Addition for Non-Filing Suppliers as Assessee Furnished Complete Evidence [Read Order]")
The Patna Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] order deleting an addition of ₹4.98 crore for purchases from non-filing suppliers, as the assessee furnished complete evidence.
The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by CIT(A) for the AY 2021-22. In this case, Sincon Infrastructure Private Ltd., respondent-assessee, filed its income-tax return on 18-02-2022, declaring a total income of ₹2,40,84,200/-.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
The assessee was engaged in construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, and related projects. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS because significant purchases were made from suppliers who had not filed their income-tax returns.
The AO found that purchases from seven such suppliers, totaling ₹4,98,11,922/-, were largely unresponsive to notices issued under section 133(6). Only one supplier responded. The AO treated these purchases as unsubstantiated and added them to the assessee’s income.
On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim, noting that the assessee had provided full documentation, including ledger accounts and invoices. The AO had not identified any deficiencies in the records except the non-filing of returns by suppliers.
The CIT(A) referred to judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd., Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, and Dash CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises, which held that mere non-filing by suppliers does not render purchases bogus, and the burden shifts to the tax authorities to prove non-genuineness when proper records are maintained.
The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) noted that the assessee had made purchases totaling ₹4,98,11,922/- from seven parties, which the AO claimed had not filed income-tax returns and had mostly not responded to notices under section 133(6).
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
The assessee had submitted all supporting documents, including invoices, payment details, and vouchers. The AO had made additions solely because the suppliers were non-filers and the purchases were allegedly unverified.
The appellate tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had requested a remand report from the AO, which was never submitted. The assessee complied with all directions and provided complete evidence, which the CIT(A) examined and accepted, relying on relevant judicial decisions.
The bench also noted that the assessee had produced GST returns of the suppliers, which were auto-populated from the portal.
Finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s order, the ITAT upheld it and dismissed the revenue’s appeal.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
