Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company filed its income tax return for AY 2013-14, declaring ₹15,800/-. Based on information regarding layering of funds and bogus accommodation entries, the AO found the assessee received ₹25,00,000/- from M/s. Bhumilaxmi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. The AO added this sum under Section 68 of the Act and assessed the total income at ₹25,15,800/- under Section 147 r.w.s. Section 144B.
Held
The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of ₹25,00,000/-, holding that the AO failed to make a case for the addition and relied solely on investigation findings without establishing linkage. The Tribunal, considering the Revenue's grounds of appeal regarding the onus of proof under Section 68, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing both parties an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by ignoring the settled position of law regarding the assessee's onus to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of accommodation entries.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 68, 144, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 09-September-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)']-NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2013-14 dated 29.09.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 233 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Revenue stating as under:
The Revenue is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: