DEEPANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 774/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax, as the addition itself was disputed. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to information about bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer added purchases worth Rs. 2,74,41,726/- as bogus. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, deeming it not maintainable for non-payment of advance tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable due to non-payment of advance tax on disputed additions. The genuineness of purchases made by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG

Hearing: 18.03.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 28.12.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

At the time of filing of appeal, the Registry has pointed out a defect that appeal is time barred by 74 days.

P a g e | 2 ITA No.774/JPR/2025 Deepankar Gupta 3. We have heard both the representatives of the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (in short, “the AO”) received information that the assessee was indulged in bogus purchases. The case of the assessee was, therefore, reopened u/s 147 of the Act. During the reopened assessment proceedings, the AO show- caused the assessee as to why the bogus purchases should not be added to the income of the assessee. The assessee denied that the said purchases were bogus and also filed some details to prove the genuineness of the purchases, however, the AO was not satisfied with the said reply of the assessee. Therefore, the AO treated the purchases shown by the assessee from M/s Baiju Dealtrade Private Limited of Rs.2,74,41,726/- as bogus and added back the same to the income of the assessee.

5.

Being aggrieved by the said order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, without examining the facts of the case, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, holding the same is not maintainable observing that assessee had not paid the advance tax in respect of the demand raised by the AO vide the impugned assessment order.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.774/JPR/2025 Deepankar Gupta 6. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. The contention regarding the payment of advance tax is applicable on the self-assessed income of the assessee. The addition of the income relating to which the demand was created, was disputed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there was no question of payment of advance tax relating to such demand. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the appeal was not maintainable. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case and to furnish the necessary details and thereafter, may call upon the remand report, if need be, from the AO upon such evidences. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) will decide the appeal of the assessee in accordance with law.

7.

With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 15/05/2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member Dated 15.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS

P a g e | 4 ITA No.774/JPR/2025 Deepankar Gupta Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →