DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SMT RAJPRIYAM, RAJAPALAYAM

ITA 2047/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by calling for and admitting additional evidence, as permitted by sub-rule (4). The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions on sundry creditors and unsecured loans, especially after the AO had rejected the assessee's books and resorted to estimation.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the AO on account of sundry creditors and unsecured loans. The CIT(A) had also admitted additional evidence, which the Revenue contended violated Rule 46A.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence, and whether the deletion of additions on sundry creditors and unsecured loans was justified after the AO rejected the books of account.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 41(1),Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 06.11.2024Pronounced: 10.01.2025

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 05.02.2024 for the Assessment Year

(hereinafter in short "AY”) 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of ‘103’ days in filing

of the appeal, for which, the DCIT has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, and the Ld.Counsel of the assessee didn’t r

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 →