SUDHA AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2267/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 September 2026AY 2013-20144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider the additional evidence (daily stock register) produced by the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue by considering the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 26,81,630/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging bogus purchases. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, submitting additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of bogus purchases under Section 68 is justified, and whether the profit embedded in such transactions should be the only addition. The admissibility and consideration of additional evidence before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Respondent: Shri Manab Adak, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.09.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2267/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Sudha Agarwal Vs. DCIT, Circle-29, Kolkata N-202B, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-700024 [PAN: AETPA2839J] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Mrs. Shreya Loyalka, AR Respondent by : Shri Manab Adak, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.09.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 30.04.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs.26,81,630/- u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has suppressed its income by taking accommodation entry in the form of bogus purchase/ transactions from entities controlled and managed by Shri Hitesh Jain and Dinesh Jain. Aggrieved by the Assessment

ITA No.2267/Kol/2026 Sudha Agarwal; A.Y: 2013-14 Order dated 22.09.2021, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 30.04.2026, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

Assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, wherein produced daily stock register and contended that the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided opportunity to produce the daily stock register in order to prove that, what was purchased has also been sold by the Assessee. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that it is well-settled law that when undisclosed purchases are discovered in the course of assessment, it is only profit embodied in the said transactions which can be added to the total income. Thus, submitted that Authorities below have committed in making/ upholding the addition. Thus, relying on the following Judicial precedents, sought for restricting the addition to the profit as embodied in the transactions as held in the following judicial precedents:-

i. ITO v. The Silk Factory ITA No. 6048/Del/2024 dated 18.2.2026 ii. Dhar & Co. Pvt Ltd. v. ITO ITA No.1113/Kol/2024 dated 17.3.2025 iii. PCIT v. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill P Ltd ITAT/227/2023 - Cal HC Page | 2

ITA No.2267/Kol/2026 Sudha Agarwal; A.Y: 2013-14

iv. PCIT v. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bom) v. PCIT v. S.V.Jiwani (2022) 145 taxmann.com 230 (Bom) vi. PCIT v. Jagdish H. Patel (2017) 84 taxmann.com 259 (Guj) vii. PCIT v. Subarna Rice Mill (2018) 96 taxmann.com 286 (Cal) viii. Arham Star v. ITO (2025) 180 taxmann.com 44 (Mum) ix. Sushanta Ghosh v ITO ITA No. 2533/Kol/2025 dt 26.2.2026 x. Award Vintrade P Ltd v ITO ITA No. 973/Kol/2026 dated 29.6.2026 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Before us, in order to prove the genuineness of the purchases/ transaction to the tune of Rs.26,81,635/-, Assessee filed additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, wherein the Assessee has produced the daily stock register. The said additional documents were not available to the benefit of Authorities below. Considering the fact that the additional documents produced before us required to be verified and considered by the Assessing Officer, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to consider the additional documents produced before us and decide the issue by considering the judicial precedents (supra) relied by the Assessee.

ITA No.2267/Kol/2026 Sudha Agarwal; A.Y: 2013-14 6. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 09.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09.09.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →