SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1786/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 October 2018AY 2010-1156 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the AO had a good starting point for investigation based on information about bogus purchases, the investigation was not taken to its logical end. Suspicion cannot replace evidence, and the AO failed to conduct further investigation like checking suppliers' bank accounts.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the Assessing Officer's action under section 147/148 and additions on account of disallowances under section 69C for bogus purchases. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the notices were returned unserved.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of reopening the assessment under section 147/148 and whether the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases was justified without sufficient evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(30)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, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepari-DR
Hearing: 11/10/2018

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →