NITENDRA SINGH RATHORE HUF ,SAGAR vs. ITO-1, SAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 157/JAB/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 February 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in it. No material was presented by the assessee to justify any interference with or modification of the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an HUF, filed its return for AY 2012-13. The AO made an addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 69, alleging that the purchase of shares of M/s. Conart Traders Ltd was a bogus accommodation entry. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition ex-parte.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 69 for an alleged bogus accommodation entry related to share purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

O R D E R (A) This appeal vide 2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 09.08.2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1067476749(1) of Ld. Addl/JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Gurugram, the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Grounds of appeal are as under:

1.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. AO has erred in making and Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) in an ex-parte manner in confirming the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- u/s 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by alleging that purchase of shares of M/s. Conart Traders Ltd by appellant is a bogus accommodation entry.

2.

That the impugned ex-parte order so passed is illegal and wrong.

3.

That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

Assessment Year:2012-13 2 (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a HUF. The assessee filed its return of income on 17.10.2012 for A.Y. 2012-13, declaring total income of Rs.4,67,970/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 148/143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) vide assessment order dated 26.07.2017 at a total income assessed at Rs.7,67,970/- as against returned income of Rs.4,67,970/-. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal observing as under:

Assessment Year:2012-13 3 (C) During the course of hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In the absence of any representation from the side of the assessee, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard, who relied on the orders of the authorities below. On careful perusal of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), and other materials on record, no infirmity is found in it. No material has been presented from either side to justify any interference with or modification of the impugned order of learned CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 19/02/2026)

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →