INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHANBAD vs. NEELKANTH ORES PRIVATE LIMITED, DHANBAD

ITA 65/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 September 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that it was the duty of the Revenue to show evidence that the assessee had actually entered into a transaction with M/s Rajshree Vanijya Udyog. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not confronted the assessee with any such information. The Tribunal held that merely stating the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus entries was insufficient to conclude that the assessee was involved in transactions with a bogus entity. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error or infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, which was based on the AO's failure to prove the transaction. The addition of Rs. 1,35,01,215/- was deleted. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Income Tax Officer, Dhanbad) is in appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The NFAC had deleted an addition of Rs. 1,35,01,215/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had initiated proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after receiving information from the 'insight' portal that M/s Rajshree Vanijya Udyog was involved in issuing fraudulent invoices without actual supply of goods and services. The assessee, Neelkanth Ores Private Limited, was alleged to be one such entity that received such invoices. The AO added the amount under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure, stating the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to disprove the purchases. The assessee had denied any transaction with M/s Rajshree Vanijya Udyog.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,01,215/- by accepting the assessee's contention that it was not involved in the transaction with M/s. Rajashree Vanijya Udyog, despite the transaction appearing in its GSTR 2 and audited accounts (Section 69C). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee's denial of purchase from M/s Rajshree Vanijya Udyog lacks credibility, as the assessee never challenged the purchase before any competent authority or the seller. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it had never indulged in any transaction with M/s Rajshree Vanijya Udyog, and therefore, it was not possible to establish the genuineness of a non-existent transaction. The assessee contended that it was the Revenue's duty to present evidence of actual transactions or accommodation entries. The assessee relied on the principle that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish the transaction. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the AO's order, arguing that the transaction appeared in the assessee's GSTR 2 and audited accounts, and the assessee's denial lacked credibility as it was not challenged before any authority. The Revenue contended that the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus entries.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 148A(b),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmat Singhka, C.A
For Respondent: Md. Shadab Ahmed, CIT-DR, Shri P.K. Himmat Singhka, C.A
Hearing: 08/09/2026Pronounced: 25/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 29/10/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 wherein the revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,01,215/- by accepting the contention of the assessee company that it was not involve in the transaction with M/s. Rajashree Vanijya Udyog. However, this transaction was already appearing in its GSTR 2 at the time of filing its return of income and a

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 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →