INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA vs. VIKASH GOYAL, AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 147/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 June 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee had declared the sales and offered them to tax, and the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be detailed and reasonable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 4,43,700/- to the assessee's income as unexplained credit from bogus sales to M/s S.K. Industries, based on information from a search and seizure operation. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding the transactions genuine based on supporting documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of sales as unexplained credit was justified when the sales were declared and offered to tax. Whether the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based on documentary evidence was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’ : AGRA

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Goyal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 16.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’ : AGRA BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.147//AGR/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2020-21) Income Tax Officer, vs. Vikash Goyal, Ward 2(1)(2), Agra. 34/60, A/6, Balkeshwar Road, Agra – 282 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AGWPG8688) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Gaurav Goyal, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2026 O R D E R 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the assessment year AY 2020-21 declaring an income of Rs.8,03,900/- on 21.10.2020. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee provided entries of bogus purchases of Rs.4,43,700/- to M/s S.K. Industries, Agra in the year under consideration under the garb of bogus sales to the said firm and the same has been unearthed during search & seizure proceedings conducted on 31.10.2023 in the case of B.P. Oil Mills and

2 ITA No.147/Agr/2026

other oil group of Agra. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued to the assessee asking him to furnish requisite details regarding the bogus transactions regarding the same. In response, assessee filed submissions which were duly considered but not found acceptable to the AO. Further, in view of the facts mentioned in the report of the Investigation Wing, non-confirmation of the purchases made by M/s S.K. Industries from the assessee of Rs.4,43,700/-, discrepancies found in the Eway bills submitted by the assessee, Assessing Officer treated the amount received by the assessee in respect of bogus sale bill issued to M/s. S.K. Industries amounting to Rs 4,43,700/- (on 06.06.2019 & 17.07.2019 excluding CSGT and SGST) as unexplained as it is duly proved to be the receipts from accommodation entry and no actual sale was made by the assessee. Hence, he added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained credit and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed detailed submissions. Ld. CIT (A) after going through the detailed submissions, allowed the appeal and deleted the addition. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee requested to argue first on the ground that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) has passed an order u/s 250 dated 23.l2.2025, whereby the addition of Rs.4,43,700/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE

3 ITA No.147/Agr/2026

was deleted in favour of the assessee and the Income Tax Department has preferred an appeal before the ITAT, Agra against the said order on 20.02.2026, involving a tax effect of Rs.3,46,086/- only. 6. He submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, whereby the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals before the ITAT has been enhanced to Rs.60,00,000/-. He submitted that as per the said CBDT Circular, no appeal shall be filed by the Department before the ITAT where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.60,00,000/-, except in specified exceptional circumstances, none of which are applicable in the present case. 7. Ld. AR further submitted that in the present case, the tax effect involved is only Rs.3,46,086/-, which is far below the prescribed monetary limit, and therefore, the departmental appeal is clearly not maintainable. 8. He submitted that it is a settled position of law that CBDT Circulars issued under section 268A are binding on the Department, and appeals filed in violation of such circulars are liable to be dismissed. In view of the above facts and legal position, he prayed that the appeal filed by the Department may be dismissed as not maintainable on account of low tax effect, in terms of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17,09.2024. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the even though the low tax effect is involved in this appeal, however the issue is covered under the exceptional circumstances, hence the appeal is maintainable.

4 ITA No.147/Agr/2026

10.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. In view of the above position, I noticed that the tax effect in appeal preferred by the Revenue is below Rs.60 lakhs, however the issue involved is relating to accommodation entry, the same falls under the exceptional clause ‘d’ of the CBDT circular. Hence, the submissions of the assessee are dismissed. 11. Even otherwise, from the order of ld. CIT (A), I observed that ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue on merit and given a detailed reasonable findings which are reproduced below :- “6.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant, facts of the case and impugned order. 6.3.1 It is emanating from the assessment order that the assessing officer had definite information on record to initiate reassessment proceedings. I have already reproduced the reasons for ignition of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in this appeal order. 6.4 Moreover, Hon. Delhi High Court has concluded in case of M/s Yukti Exports that there is concurrent jurisdiction for Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) to initiate re-assessment proceedings to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has passed the order without jurisdiction is not true in the light of above- mentioned case law. Moreover, during re-assessment proceedings, assessing officer has given ample opportunities to the assessee to make submissions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessing officer denied opportunity to the assessee to furnish submissions. 6.5 Accordingly, Ground No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are, dismissed. 7. Ground No. 5 and 6 are interlinked and mainly contest the addition of Rs.4,43,700/- on account of alleged bogus purchases by M/s S. K. Industries from the assessee. I am clubbing these grounds of appeal together for the purpose of adjudication. 7.1 These grounds of appeal are as below:

5 ITA No.147/Agr/2026

5.

Because in any view treating the sales made to M/s SK Industries as bogus is grossly arbitrary, without any material, preserve, illegal and against the facts & law of the case. 6. Because in any view the addition of Rs. 4,43,7001- being credit in bank account is grossly arbitrary, without considering replies, wrong, illegal and against the fact and law of case. 7.2 I have carefully gone through all the submissions made by the assessee and the assessment order. It is emanating that Assessing Officer has raised suspicion on sales of goods by the assessee of Rs.4,43,700/- during the impugned year on the basis of weights displayed in E-way bills as mentioned on Page No. 27 of the assessment order. However, I am of the considered opinion that the quantity filled in E-way bill refers to Invoice quantity is taxable supply value and not the actual carrying capacity of the vehicle. Thus, Mismatch between Gross Vehicle Weight GVW and invoice quantity cannot alone invalidate the transaction. 7.3 Moreover, the show-cause notice itself states as below: "Either goods were sent without e-way bill or lesser or no goods were sent" 7.4 This shows that assessing officer is uncertain and allegation is conjectural and not conclusive. Law requires definite finding, not alternatives. 7.5 In the impugned case, assessee has produced bank account statement, corresponding invoices reflecting the goods exchanged with M/s S. K. Industries, E-way Bills and corresponding GST returns disclosing the goods. 7.6 In my considered opinion these documents are sufficient to prove the genuineness of transactions as far as Assessing Officer does not bring out clinching documentary evidence contrary to it. In this case, Assessing Officer has relied upon the statement of the third party without bringing out the clinching corroborative documentary evidence in support of the statement recorded during the search operation as mentioned in the assessment order. 7.7 Thus, in the absence of any contrary evidence, the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.4,43,7001- is unsustainable.

6 ITA No.147/Agr/2026

12.

After going through the findings of the ld. CIT (A), I find that the issue involved relating to issue of bogus sales bill. I observed that the assessee had already declared the sales and offered to tax. The same cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act. Further, ld. CIT (A) has passed a detailed and reasonable order and accordingly, I uphold the same. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of June, 2026.

Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 16.06.2026 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AGRA

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →