BLUE WATER ALCOBEV,LUCKNOW vs. CIT (A) NFAC, LUCKNOW

ITA 443/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 September 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. It noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the AO made an addition of Rs. 3,04,01,055/- under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961, as the assessee could not explain the source of cash credits. The appellate authority sustained this addition. The Tribunal found no submissions or material presented by the assessee to rebut the findings of the CIT(A). The Revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was dismissed accordingly. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling the order upon demonstrating sufficient cause for non-appearance. The issue regarding jurisdiction of notices was not decided on merits due to the dismissal for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The appeal by the assessee, Blue Water Alcobev, is against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 24.05.2024, for assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 3,04,01,055/- by treating total purchases as bogus and invoking Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenge the confirmation of this addition, citing issues with suppliers Ablaze Info Solutions Pvt Ltd and Bihar State Beverages Corporation, and questioning the validity of notices and jurisdiction. The assessee did not appear for hearings before the Tribunal despite multiple opportunities. The Revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and facts by confirming the assessment order and making an addition of Rs. 3,04,01,055/- under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961, by treating total purchases as bogus? - Assessee's contention: The CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the addition, ignoring issues with suppliers like Ablaze Info Solutions Pvt Ltd (whose directors faced prosecution and offices were sealed) and Bihar State Beverages Corporation (where supply was made from a different unit and sales were banned in Bihar). The assessee also argued that a letter from ITO(TDS) indicated misuse of TDS, not TCS, and the assessee's name was not on the list of those misusing TDS. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue's representative supported the orders of the lower authorities, arguing that in the absence of relevant evidence, the findings of the lower authorities do not require interference. 2. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the AO's order despite objections regarding the validity of jurisdiction of notices issued by the ITO? - Assessee's contention: Notices issued under Section 143(2) by the ITO were without jurisdiction, as per CBDT instruction No. 01/2011, and the assessee's jurisdiction lay with the ACIT. Therefore, the notice and consequential assessment order are bad in law. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT (DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.05.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. The CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and in facts confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer and making addition of Rs 3,04,01,055/- (total sales amount) u/s 68 of IT Act after treating the total purchase as bogus purchases debited by assesee in her pro

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →