SRI PALASH BHOWMICK,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found that for some parties, purchase bills and ledger accounts were provided, and for others, the genuineness of purchases was not controverted by the Revenue.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 7,11,151/- to the assessee's income, treating sundry creditors for purchases as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee's appeal was delayed by 14 days due to illness.
What were the issues?
Whether sundry creditors for purchases can be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act when the genuineness of the purchases is established or not controverted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]
For the Appellant: Shri Siddhartha Pratim dutta, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 303/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Kol/Wd-1(2)/HG/2011-12 dated 30.06.2014. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-1(2), Hooghly u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2009-10 vide his order dated 09.12.2011.
At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal by assessee is barred by limitation by 14 days and assessee has filed condonation petition stating the reasons that the assessee was seriously ill and doctor advised him to take rest for full one week w.e.f. 22.10.2014 and the appeal was getting time barred on 23.10.2014. Ultimately the assessee filed appeal on 05.11.2014. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the assessee before me stated that due to reasonable cause there was a delay in filing appeal and qua that assessee has also filed an affidavit. I find the cause as reasonable and accordingly, I admit the appeal.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO relating to sundry creditor (purchases) treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a civil contractor engaged in civil construction work. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed from the accounts of the assessee that there are sundry creditor in regard to purchases which have not been confirmed by the parties and accordingly, he added the same by treating the same as bogus sundry creditors at Rs.7,11,151/-, which are the following: Sl. Name of the sundry creditors Amount as Amount as per Difference No. per assessee confirmation 1 Laxmi Enterprise 1,62,630/- Not received - 2. Popular Tube Well & Rubber Industries 1,84,790/- Returned back unserved 1,84,790/-
2 Palash Bhowmick, AY 2009-10 3. Isha Enterprise 1,14,300/- Not yet received - 4. New Mohesh Brick Field 1,82,800/- Nil 1,82,800/- 5. S. K. Rhaman 1,46,880/- Not yet received 1,58,361/- 6. Mogra Cement Pipe Co. 1,62,679/- 4,336/- 1,58,361/- 7. Show Enterprise 1,85,200/- Returned back unserved 1,85,200/- 8. Geus Construction 1,21,340/- Not yet received - Total difference 7, 11,151/- Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the action of AO by relying on the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal.
I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a paper book consists of pages 1 to 40 wherein he has filed details of purchases made from Popular Tube Well & Rubber Industries and outstanding balance as on 31.03.2009 at Rs.1,84,792/-. Similarly, the assessee has also filed copy of ledger account and purchase bills in respect to Mogra Cement Pipe Company amounting to Rs.1,62,697/- balance as on 31.03.2009, Shyam Enterprises amounting to Rs.1,85,200/- in respect to which the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition. The assessee in his paper book has filed complete details in respect to these three parties regarding purchases and outstanding amount. In respect to New Mohesh Brick field amounting to Rs.1,82,800/- the assessee could not file the purchase bills but filed only ledger account without confirmation. But on query from the Bench, Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert that the purchases are ingenuine. No doubt the assessee could not produce the bills respect to purchases made on account of New Mogra Brick Field but the Ld. Sr. DR also could not controvert that the purchases are made and the same are genuine. Once the purchases are accepted as genuine, the sundry creditor cannot be added as unexplained. In term of the above notice, I delete the addition and allow the appeal of assessee.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) Judicial Member
Dated : 4th February, 2016
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026