PRITAM SINGH SAHNI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, RAJAHMUNDRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 689/VIZ/2019Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 April 2021AY 2009-20109 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the stock difference needed verification and reconciliation between the bank statement and the books of accounts. Regarding sundry creditors, the Tribunal noted that additions were made without invoking specific sections of the Act and without proper inquiry into the genuineness of purchases.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made substantial additions to the assessee's income, including differences in stock and sundry creditors. The assessee argued that the stock statement provided to the bank was provisional and unreconciled, and that the sundry creditors were related to genuine purchases made through banking channels.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made on account of stock difference and unproved sundry creditors were justified without proper verification and reconciliation. Whether the AO correctly applied the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act for such additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 37(1),Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Hearing: 06.04.2021Pronounced: 16.04.2021

per law. Since, no enquiries were made in this case and the AO made the addition without having collected any evidence except for want of confirmations, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be reexamined in detail and make the assessment afresh on merits as per law.

1.

Therefore, we remit the issue back to the file of the AO to do the assessment afresh after giving opportunity to the assessee. Both the Ld.DR and Ld.AR have accepted to remit the matter back to the file of the AO. Accordingly, we direct the AO to redo the assessment after giving opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the department and furnish necessary information.

12.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th April, 2021.

Sd/- sd/- (एन के चौिरी) (डड.एस .सुन्दर ससंह) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) (D.S.SUNDER SINGH) न्याययक सदस्य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 16 .04.2021 L.Rama, SPS

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतषि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. तिर्धाररिी/ The Assessee – Pritam Singh Sahni, Prop : Bombay Motor House Plot No.242 & 243, Auto Nagar, Diwancheruvu Mandal, Rajahmundry 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Rajahmundry 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajamahendravaram 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajamahendravaram 5. तवभधगीय प्रतितितर्, आयकर अिीिीय अतर्करण, तवशधखधिटणम/DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गधर्ाफ़धईि / Guard file

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →