Bogus Bills Trigger Valid Reopening: HC Dismisses Writ Against Reassessment

High Court upholds reassessment for AY 2019-20; finds sufficient material with AO on alleged bogus purchase; petition dismissed.

Court finds sufficient material with AO; petition against reassessment dismissed

Meetu Kumari | Sep 27, 2025 |

Bogus Bills Trigger Valid Reopening: HC Dismisses Writ Against Reassessment

Bogus Bills Trigger Valid Reopening: HC Dismisses Writ Against Reassessment

The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, filed its return for AY 2019-20 declaring income of Rs. 40.90 lakh. Based on information from the investigation wing and the Risk Management Strategy of CBDT, the Assessing Officer alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 88.86 lakh from M/s Karthik Alloys Pvt. Ltd., an entity found engaged in issuing accommodation bills. Notices under Section 148A(1) were issued in March 2025, and the petitioner filed replies with supporting documents such as purchase bills, GST returns, bank statements, transportation records and NCLT orders. However, the AO held that these did not satisfactorily explain the transactions and proceeded to reopen the case under Section 147/148.

The petitioner argued that the reassessment was mechanically initiated, without proper application of mind or compliance with CBDT’s 2021–22 guidelines mandating enquiry, speaking order, and due consideration of replies. It contended that liquidation of Karthik Alloys could not itself render the entity bogus, and that the AO had ignored evidence on record. The Revenue countered that Karthik Alloys was a paper entity issuing fraudulent invoices, and that the petitioner’s purchases were sham, suppressing taxable profit.

Issue Raised: Whether reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20 could be sustained when based on alleged bogus purchases from M/s Karthik Alloys Pvt. Ltd., despite the assessee’s replies and supporting documents.

HC’s Decision: The Court held that initiation of reassessment was justified, as there was sufficient material before the AO under Section 148A, drawn from CBDT’s Risk Management Strategy. It noted that the petitioner was given notice and had responded, and therefore, principles of natural justice were not violated. The sufficiency of evidence to establish escapement of income was a matter for the AO to examine in reassessment proceedings, not for judicial review.

Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the reassessment order dated 28.06.2025 and the related notice under Section 148 for AY 2019-20.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes major TP additions, limits R&D deduction to DSIR approval PCIT’s Section 263 revision quashed where AO had made due enquiries on alleged bogus purchases Delhi HC awards 6% interest on VAT refund delayed by over 15 years Delhi HC sets aside GST order passed without proper service of show cause notice CBI Court Sentences Three to 3 Years’ Jail in Rs. 1.18 Crore Excise Duty Rebate FraudView All Posts