ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD, DHANBAD vs. KAMAL KUMAR GOEL, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s quashing of the assessment due to procedural irregularity in not disposing of objections to reopening was an error that should be rectified by restoring the issue to the AO. Regarding merits, the Tribunal found that the issue of bogus purchases needed further verification.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted additions made by the AO. The AO had treated purchases from M/s. Parth International as bogus based on statements from an entry operator. The CIT(A) had quashed the assessment for procedural irregularities and also deleted additions on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order was sustainable when objections to reopening were not disposed of separately, and whether the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of purchases from an entry operator.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Per Bench These are the two appeals filed by the Revenue against the separate orders dated 13.08.2024 of the ld CIT(A), Patna-3 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Patna- 3/10810/2012-13 and in Appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-3/11231/2014-15 for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16, respectively.
Shri Robindro Singh, Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and Shri Nitin Kumar Pasari , ld AR appeared for the assessee.
P a g e 1 | 6
ITA No. 408 & 409/RAN/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16
It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the issues in both the appeals are common. The issues basically ar
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.
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
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026