INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. UNIGLOBAL PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2182/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 January 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payment could not be treated as bogus solely because the recipient had not filed a return of income, especially when the assessee provided all necessary details and had a history of payments to the contractor.

What were the facts?

The assessee made a payment of ₹54,37,571/- to M/s Bhagwati Mechanical Services for sub-contract charges. The Assessing Officer treated this payment as bogus expenditure and made an addition under Section 69C because the recipient had not filed a return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the payment made to a sub-contractor can be treated as bogus expenditure when the recipient has not filed a return of income, despite the assessee fulfilling other compliance requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: shri Manoj Kataruka &
For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Hearing: 04.12.2025Pronounced: 18.12.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.06.2025 for the AY 2018-19.

2.

The only issue raised in ground no.1, is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹54,37,571/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus expenditure in respect of payment to M/s Bhagwati Mechanical Services, which is contrary to material/evidences on record and thus, bad in law.

2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by holding that there was failure of the assessee to establish the identity of the recipient and further failure of the recipient of payment to file the return of income making the claim unverifiable and thus, justified the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer

2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is a contractor and has

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →