JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI
Facts
The assessee's case for AY 2015-16 was selected for scrutiny, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,88,60,982/- for bogus purchases/sundry creditors due to failure to provide supporting evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this addition and directed re-assessment for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19. Reassessment proceedings were initiated, and the Ld. AO again made additions under Section 68 and imposed penalties. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, challenging the reassessment proceedings, additions, and penalties, primarily on the ground of denial of adequate opportunity to present evidence.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to submit necessary evidence before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) for all assessment years (2013-14 to 2018-19) and remanded the cases back to the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity for the assessee to file necessary evidence, with the liberty to make a best judgment assessment if no evidence is furnished. The consequential penalty orders were also set aside for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings; Addition under Section 68 for bogus purchases/unexplained sundry creditors; Levy of penalties under Section 270A and Section 271AAC(1); Denial of adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 41(1), 251(2), 148A, 148, 144, 68, 270A, 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण गुवाहाटी पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्ुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री मनमोहन दास, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 217, 218 & 219/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 I.T.A. Nos.: 220 & 222/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. Nos.: 221 & 223/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayanta Khaund ACIT, CIR-1, Guwahati Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AKKPK7824L Appearances: Assessee represented by : Sweta Jain, FCA. Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : March 10th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : March 21st, 2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred
We will take up ITA No. 217/GTY/2024 as the lead case. Brief facts of the case are that in AY 2015-16 the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 26.12.2017 assessing total income at Rs. 2,48,08,760/- after making addition of Rs. 1,88,60,982/- on account of bogus purchases (liability shown as sundry creditors) claimed during the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015. The addition was made as the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim of purchases made and the existence of the sundry creditors could not be proved in spite of he having been provided several opportunities. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of the appeal, several opportunities were afforded to the assessee to prove the claim on the purchases made by the assessee during the year and consequential sundry creditors raised on account of the same. The assessee was also given an opportunity to produce the supporting bills & vouchers and payment details for the above and accordingly summons u/s 131 of the Act was issued by the DCIT, Circle-1, Guwahati on 31.01.2019 and the assessee was requested to produce the details/documents, subsequent payments along with supporting bank statements and books of account for the purchases made during FY 2014-15 from Shri Toko Kach, Neelam Tain, Gem Taje and M/s. Tagum Enterprises, the bills and vouchers of which were produced as additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee failed to produce the required details which were called for and could produce nothing in spite of several opportunities being afforded. The Ld.
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata
