M/S. VINAYAK AGRO INDUSTRIES,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-4, ROURKELA

ITA 107/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 November 2023AY 2009-1013 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the charge of clandestine removal/undervaluation cannot sustain solely on the basis of pen drive data, especially when obtained in violation of statutory provisions. Since the assessment orders did not clearly elaborate how the undisclosed turnover was determined and the facts were not fully produced, the matter was restored to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were delayed by 9 days. The reopening of assessment was based on data from a laptop and pen drives seized during a search by the Central Excise Department. The CESTAT had previously quashed similar assessments based on this data, finding it unreliable and not obtained in compliance with mandatory conditions.

What were the issues?

Whether reopening of assessment based on pen drive data, which was previously held unreliable by CESTAT, is valid. Whether the Assessing Officer has discharged the burden of proof for undisclosed sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 151,Section 36(2),Section 36(4),Section 124(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 22/11/2023Pronounced: 22/11/2023

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), for the assessment years 2009-2010 & 2012-2013. 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are delayed by 9 days each for which the assessee has filed necessary with affidavits for condonation of delay. In view of the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for delay and as the ld. Sr. DR has not raised any serious objections, the delay of 9 days each in the present appeals are condoned and both the appeals are disposed off on merits.

3.

It was submi

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →