SAGAR SAREES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 19(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's name appeared in the balance sheet of M/s. Sagar. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared a total income, but the Assessing Officer (AO) added back a liability of Rs. 6.83 lacs shown towards M/s. Sagar Sarees, deeming it not genuine. The assessee argued that the amount appeared in M/s. Sagar's balance sheet and the AO had not verified the ledger and purchase accounts.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of a liability shown towards another entity, which was disputed by the AO based on information from the other entity's assessment, was justified without proper verification of accounts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Challenging the order dated 10.10.2013 of CIT(A)-18, Mumbai the assessee has filed the present appeal. 2.The assessee firm engaged in the business of selling of sarees and dress materials filed its return of income on 29.9.2008 declaring total income of Rs.20,27,790/-.The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 24.12.2010 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.27,35,920/-. 3.The effective ground of appeal is about addition of Rs.6,83,085/-.During the assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee had shown a liability of Rs.6.83 lacs towards M/s. Sagar Sarees as on 31.3.2008.He directed it to file necessary documents in that regard. He also called for details from his counterpart i.e. ITO-19(1)(2), Mumbai who was assessing M/s.Sagar.Vide his letter dt.13.12.2010 his counterpart informed him that in the balance sheet of M/s. Sagar the name of the assessee was not appearing as a debtor. On the basis of the said letter the AO held that the liability amounting to Rs.6.83 lacs shown by the assessee towards M/s. Sagar was not genuine.He added it back to the income of the assessee. 4.Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him, it was argued that the disputed amount was appearing in the balance sheet of M/s.Sagar, that the AO had not verified the ledger and purchase account, that in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dt.27.6.2012 the assessee had filed necessary evidences before the AO.After considering the submission of the assessee the FAA held that his predecessor had called for a remand report from the AO to verify the fact as to whether the amount of Rs.6.83 lacs was reflected in the books of account of M/s. Sagar, that the assessee had not filed any detail in its support.Finally, he upheld the order of the AO. 5.Before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee had filed the balance sheet and audited accounts of M/s. sagar, that in the books of account of M/s.Sagar the name of the assessee was appearing, that the AO/FAA had not verified the facts properly.
193/M/14-Sagar Sarees
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026