JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 219/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)13 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that proper evidence was not presented by the assessee before the lower authorities and the reassessment proceedings lacked clarity on the specific creditors and purchases treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concern reassessment proceedings initiated for multiple assessment years due to alleged bogus purchases and sundry creditors. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68, and penalties were levied under Sections 270A and 271AAC.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and whether the additions made under Section 68 for sundry creditors were justified without proper identification and substantiation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 68,Section 41(1),Section 270A,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

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 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.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →