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

PDF
ITA 222/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)13 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

Facts

The assessee's case for AY 2015-16 was selected for scrutiny, leading to an addition of Rs. 1.88 crore for bogus purchases/sundry creditors. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this addition and further enhanced it, directing reassessment for multiple years (AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19), resulting in significant additions under Section 68 and related penalties.

Held

The Tribunal found that proper representation was not made by the assessee, but also noted that the AO had not adequately investigated the bogus creditors or purchases. Consequently, both the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO for all assessment years were set aside, remitting the cases back to the AO to provide the assessee another opportunity to furnish necessary evidence and confirm sundry creditors, with consequential penalty orders also set aside.

Key Issues

Validity of reassessment proceedings; justification of additions under Section 68 for bogus purchases/sundry creditors without proper inquiry and adequate opportunity to the assessee; and the legality of consequential penalties under Section 270A and Section 271AAC(1).

Sections Cited

250, 143(3), 41(1), 251(2), 131, 148A, 148A(b), 148, 144, 68, 147, 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

3.

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

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI | BharatTax