INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

ITA 8819/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 March 2026Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries or rebut the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its initial onus, and the AO's findings were not specific or evidence-based.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made for alleged bogus purchases. The assessee claimed to have provided documentary evidence for the purchases, while the AO alleged the suppliers were accommodation entry providers and the assessee failed to prove genuineness.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of purchases when the AO alleged them to be bogus and provided accommodation entries without sufficient independent verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, AR
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.03.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue, challenging the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless

Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'),

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2015-16 & 2017-18. 2. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA

No.8818/M/2025 as the lead case.

3.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →