CHHOTAY LAL JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 106/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2026AY 2021-20226 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including e-way bills and payment confirmations. The cancellation of the supplier's GST registration was also reversed by the GST Appellate Authority, indicating no fraudulent claims. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income which was initially accepted. However, the case was selected for scrutiny based on an investigation report alleging bogus purchases from Aniket Trading. The assessee provided purchase invoices, GST returns, and transporter details, but the Assessing Officer treated the purchases as bogus.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases made from a supplier whose GST registration was initially cancelled but later revoked by the appellate authority can be treated as bogus without sufficient independent evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, DR
Hearing: 06.04.2026Pronounced: 21.05.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 05.12.2025 for the AY 2021-22.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee against the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation for addition of ₹77,30,900/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of bogus purchases.

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 02.03.2022, declaring total income at ₹60,41,710/-

4.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal by simply affirming the order of the ld. Assessing Officer.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that as per the information available in insight and dissemination report of DDIT, Investigation-3(2), Kolkata, it was alleged that the assessee has made bogus purchases amounting to ₹77,30,900/- from Aniket Trading (proprietor Smt. Asha Kumari Shah), who was stated to be engaged in issuing fake invoices to various entities without supplying the goods with the sole aim of providing fake input tax credit to the recipients of the fake invoices. We note that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished before the ld. AO, the copy of ledger account of Smt. Asha Kumari Shah proprietor of Ankit Trading, copies of invoices, the payment details, copies of GSTR-1 and GTSTR 3B as well along with the transportation details. The ld. AO rejected the same and treated the purchases as bogus on the basis of dissemination

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 21.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 21.05.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →