PARSAN BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 36, , KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide material evidence or details of the alleged transactions with KMPL. Given the assessee's affidavit denying such purchases and the lack of substantiation by the AO, the addition made under Section 69C was deemed unsustainable and deleted. Other grounds of appeal concerning different additions were dismissed as not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in wholesale business, faced an addition of Rs. 1,32,080/- under Section 69C during a re-assessment for A.Y. 2013-14, based on alleged bogus purchases from M/s Kasturi Metal Trading Private Limited (KMPL). Despite the assessee denying any transactions with KMPL through an affidavit, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the addition under Section 69C for alleged bogus purchases was justified without supporting evidence from the Assessing Officer. 2. Whether grounds of appeal pertaining to other additions made in separate assessment orders were maintainable in the current proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
Appearances: Assessee represented by : Rip Das, CA. Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 08-July-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03-September-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 18.03.2025,
We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the assessment order shows states that the addition of Rs.1,32,080/- was made based on the basis of a survey subsequently
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026