JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI
Facts
The assessee filed multiple appeals against orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The lead case (AY 2015-16) involved an addition of Rs. 1,88,60,982/- for bogus purchases, which was confirmed and enhanced by the CIT(A), who also directed reassessment for other years. Subsequently, for AY 2013-14, reassessment proceedings under Section 148A/148 led to an addition of Rs. 64,64,610/- under Section 68 on account of non-genuine sundry creditors, as the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence at both assessment and appellate stages.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not make proper representation before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Therefore, the orders of both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer for all assessment years were set aside. The cases are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to furnish necessary evidence and frame assessment orders de novo, with consequential penalty orders also set aside for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148. 2. Justification of additions made under Section 68 for non-genuine sundry creditors/bogus purchases. 3. Levy of penalties under Section 270A and Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 41(1), 251(2), 148A, 148A(b), 148, 144, 68, 131, 142(1), 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
