THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. M/S GARG CONCAST LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the ITAT's decision was consistent with previous rulings where the Revenue failed to make independent inquiries. The appeals were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against ITAT's decision to set aside additions made on allegations of bogus purchases. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct independent inquiries from the suppliers.
What were the issues?
Whether the ITAT erred in appreciating evidence regarding bogus purchases when the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries from suppliers.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~39 & 40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 596/2018 & CM APPL. 21043/2018
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. for Revenue.
versus
M/S GARG CONCAST LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Adv.
AND
ITA 597/2018 & CM APPL. 21044/2018
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. for Revenue.
versus
M/S GARG CONCAST LTD
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R %
21.05.2018
The Revenue’s claim to the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in these two appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) is on two counts of additions made on allegations of bogus purchasers. The first amount i.e. `49,10,442/- which was upheld by the CIT(A) but set aside by the ITAT whereas, on the second amount i.e. `1,38,32,000/- both the lower appellate authorities concurred that the additions were not justified. On the second addition, the ITAT further noticed that the basis i.e. allegations of bogus purchasers and bogus invoices levelled by the customs authorities were the subject matter of the appeal made
to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had accepted the assessee’s contentions and allowed the appeal.
At the outset, this Court notices that like in the present case the assessee’s sister concern too were subjected to re-assessment proceedings which culminated in an order favourable to it. The Revenue in its appeal to this Court [i.e. ITA 390/2016, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nandan Auto Tech Ltd. (Formerly known as Garg Forgings and Casting Ltd.)] also had urged that the bogus purchases had been unlawfully claimed and consequently re-opened the assessment. The Court had repelled the Revenue’s arguments with respect to the Tribunal’s error in appreciating the evidence.
In the present case, the ITAT has ruled that the AO did not conduct any independent inquiry from the suppliers who provided material that became suspects as bogus purchasers. In Nandan Auto Tech Ltd. (supra) too the Revenue’s authorities had failed to make independent inquiries after issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act.
In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are therefore dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J MAY 21, 2018/nn
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026