ARONI TUBES PRIVATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 368/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 August 2026AY 2012-20134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The assessee was given an opportunity to produce all documents to prove the genuineness of transactions.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared NIL income for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 31,40,800 under Section 68 for unexplained bogus accommodation entries. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee discharged its burden under Section 68 to prove the identity, credit-worthiness, and genuineness of the transactions when the supplier was found to be a shell company.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sumit Purkaystha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.08.2026Pronounced: 14.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.368/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aroni Tubes Private Limited Vs. ITO Ward-14(1), Kolkata C/o Subhash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [PAN: AAFCA6478E] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR Respondent by : Shri Sumit Purkaystha, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 12.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 02.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee filed return of income declaring total income as NIL with current year loss to be carried forward to the tune of Rs.3,63,658/-. An Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on 17.12.2018 by making an addition of Rs.31,40,800/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained bogus accommodation entries. Aggrieved by the

ITA No.368/Kol/2026 Aroni Tubes Private Limited; A.Y: 2012-13 Assessment Order dated 17.12.2018, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 02.01.2026, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Assessee has established the identity of creditors, credit-worthiness and genuineness of the transactions and the Assessee has produced all the materials to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the payments have been made through banking channels. Further contended that the Assessee has also produced invoices and VAT documents, however, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that supplier of the Assessee M/s Singh Mercantile Private Limited is a shell company engaged in accommodation entry, the summons were issued to the said concerned by the Assessing Officer, however, the said concerned has not made any compliance. Further submitted that filing of VAT return and the bank statement does not establish the genuineness of the transaction particularly when the counter party has been found to be accommodation entry provider. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

ITA No.368/Kol/2026 Aroni Tubes Private Limited; A.Y: 2012-13 observed that even after providing several opportunities to explain the genuineness of the transactions, Assessee did not appear and not filed any documents in order to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the supplier M/s Singh Mercantile Private Limited has not been produced for the verification. During the first appellate proceedings even before the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that burden u/s 68 of the Act lies on the Assessee to establish identity of creditor, credit-worthiness and genuineness of the transactions which has not been proved by the Assessee. Considering the fact that Assessee has not made full compliance before the Authorities below, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment with an opportunity to the Assessee to produce all the documents and materials to prove its case. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the same and pass the Assessment Order afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 14.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 14.08.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.368/Kol/2026 Aroni Tubes Private Limited; A.Y: 2012-13 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

(MANISH BHOI) 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 →