YUKON ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROURKELA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the stock statement accepted by the AO reflected the purchases, the addition for bogus purchases should not be made solely because the seller did not respond to a notice. The AO had not adjusted the stock statement, implying acceptance of the purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased G.P. sheets for air-conditioning work. The Assessing Officer treated the purchases as bogus because the seller did not respond to a notice. The assessee argued that the purchases were consumed and reflected in the stock statement.
What were the issues?
Whether purchases can be treated as bogus solely on the non-response of the seller to a notice, when the purchases are reflected in the assessee's stock statement accepted by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 19.1.2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.NFAC/2017- 18/10228288 for the assessment year 2018-19.
Shri Amulya Amulya Kumar Roy, ld AR appeared for appeared for the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in this appeal which is It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in this appeal which is It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in this appeal which is being contested against the addition of Rs.22,58,550/ being contested against the addition of Rs.22,58,550/ being contested against the addition of Rs.22,58,550/- representing the purchases of purchases of G.P.sheets required for air-conditioning conditioning work. It was the P a g e 1 | 4 submission that the assessee had purchased 50.190 mtrs of G.P.sheet from M.S. Steel Industry, Rourkela at Rs. 45,000/- per M.T. It was the submission that as M.S. Steel Industry did not respond to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act sent by the Assessing officer, the Assessing officer treated the purchase in the hands of the assessee as bogus purchases and made the addition. It was the submission that the said sheets were purchased and was also substantially consumed. It was the submission that as the seller did not respond to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, the addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee. It was the submission that the purchases have also been included in the stock statement of the assessee and the AO disbelieved the said purchases without making necessary adjustment to the stock of the assessee, which is not permissible. It was the submission that if these purchases are not there, the assessee could not have done the work as is evident from the consumption mentioned in the stock register, therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) be deleted.
In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing officer and ld CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. The assessee has produced the stock statement and purchase details, which is as follows:
P a g e 2 | 4
“
Thus, clearly, the stock statement shows the purchase of the materials in the stock register. On account of the said purchase of nearly 50.190 mtrs, the closing stock is 35.968 mtrs. If the said purchase is disbelieved, then the assessee should have negative stock but clearly, the Assessing Officer has accepted the stock statement of the assessee and has P a g e 3 | 4 not done tinkering with the same. This being so, only because the seller did not respond to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer on account of the said purchases, the addition should not be made treating it as bogus purchases of the assessee. This being so, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2024.
More judgments on Section 133(6)
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Ritu Rajesh Gohil, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar, GujaratITA 109/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026