MOHAN GLOBAL BUSINESS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(1),, KOLKATA

ITA 2052/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 September 2026AY 2013-20145 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was liable to be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's assessment order itself acknowledged that the replies received confirmed the assessee's transactions. However, the AO, relying on an investigation wing report concerning M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., vaguely stated that the replies were manipulated. Crucially, the AO did not bring forth any evidence to demonstrate that the assessee had actually transacted with M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Since the AO's own examination revealed that the assessee transacted with M/s Encash Securities Pvt. Ltd., the very foundation of the addition collapsed. Furthermore, the Tribunal took cognizance of multiple decisions from its coordinate benches where additions based on similar circumstances, involving M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Sachet Saraf's statements, were deleted after it was recognized that Mr. Sachet Saraf had retracted his statement. Therefore, the addition was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohan Global Business Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee claimed a speculation loss of Rs. 50,24,170/-. The Assessing Officer (AO), based on information from the investigation wing, disallowed the loss and treated it as income, alleging bogus transactions with M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. The assessee contended that its transactions were with M/s Encash Securities Pvt. Ltd., not M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. The AO had issued notices under Section 133(6) to both entities and received replies confirming the assessee's transactions. The AO, however, disregarded these replies, deeming them manipulated, and proceeded with the addition. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, citing the assessee's failure to produce a statement from Mr. Sachet Saraf of M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. denying the transaction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of alleged bogus transactions with M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. is sustainable in law, considering the assessee's claim of transacting with M/s Encash Securities Pvt. Ltd. and the AO's own findings? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of the addition under relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that it had no transactions with M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. but with M/s Encash Securities Pvt. Ltd. The AO acknowledged replies confirming the transactions but wrongly attributed them to M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. based on an investigation wing report. The assessee also relied on several coordinate bench decisions, including DCIT vs Santosh Promoters Private Limited, DCIT vs Delight Suppliers Private Limited, Cimsys Research India Private Limited vs ITO, Rampuria Industries & Investment Limited vs DCIT, and Shagun Impex Private Limited, where similar additions were deleted after Mr. Sachet Saraf retracted his statement. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the assessee's transactions with M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. were bogus and that Shri Sachet Saraf had confirmed this. The revenue further argued that the assessee had not produced any evidence to show that Shri Sachet Saraf had withdrawn his statement.

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, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Kolkata-4/10827/2016-17 dated 16.10.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had claimed speculation loss of Rs.50,24,170/- in his return. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from the investigation wing took a stand that the assessee had transacted with M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and as the said transaction was bogus disallowed the

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 133(6)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →