RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 266/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 June 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)18 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct sufficient verification with GST authorities regarding the alleged purchases. Since the assessee denied the transactions and the onus shifted to the Revenue, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified without proper evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny to verify the genuineness of purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) proposed an addition of Rs. 3,53,35,148/- for purported purchases from one Mr. Vinod, alleging fictitious purchases. The assessee, citing health issues, could not file a reply, and the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of alleged fictitious purchases is justified without proper verification by the AO and whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250,Section 271AAD(1((i),Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(14)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, GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: 24-June-2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

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 2021-22 dated 08.11.2024, viii. The appellant assessee has stated that, the assessee does not have any transactions with Mr Vinod during the assessment year. To verify the contentions of the appellant assessee the LD AO had also sent a notice u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Mr Vinod dated 29.11.2022, but Mr Vinod did not file any response to the above said notice to the Assessing officer. ix. The appellant assessee has also not provided any evidence, details/letter which the assessee may have sent to the GST Authorities that, he does not have any transaction with the above party i.e. Mr Vinod. The onus to prove the transactions with the above party is also on the appellant

More judgments on Section 69C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →