UTPAL SARKAR,HOOGHLY vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1514/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 March 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the issue of Rs. 20,76,149/- towards Sarada Trading's sundry creditors could be deleted upon furnishing evidence to the AO, the remaining amount of Rs. 14,51,991/- requires verification of payment mode or other evidence, as the provided certificate from the Chartered Accountant did not specify the repayment date.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a belated return which was selected for scrutiny. Due to non-compliance, the assessment was completed ex parte. Sundry creditor amounts remained unverified and were added to the total income. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance but upheld a portion, treating unserved notices with remark 'not known' as bogus.

What were the issues?

Whether unverified sundry creditors, particularly where notices were returned unserved, can be added to the income, and whether a Chartered Accountant's certificate stating balances are nil as of a later date is sufficient proof of repayment for the assessment year in question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: March 12th, 2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 10.04.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 02.12.2016 of the DCIT, Circle-23, Hooghly while the name of the respondent has been left blank in Form No. 36.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “We have already declared the facts that SARADA TRADING is one of the proprietary Concern of the Assessee and also submitted the confirmation from the same. Because the assessing officer has not rejected the purchases or the payment for the creditors. Because there is no remission or cessation of trading liability.”

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →