M/S. SMASHER ADVERTISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings, stating the assessee failed to discharge the burden under Section 68 to establish identity and creditworthiness of the credits.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed an order confirming additions made for accommodation entries after reopening the assessment. The assessee failed to appear for hearings despite being served.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of credits under Section 68, and if the reopening of assessment was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
The Assessee has come in appeal against the appellate order dated 15.02.2017 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 31,New Delhi,in appeal no. 153/2016-17 for Assessment Year 2008-09whereby the appeal of the assessee against assessment order u/s 143(3)/r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016 passed by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-28, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).
Heard and perused the record.
ITA 2776.Del.2017 2 Smasher Advertise P. Ltd.
As the case was called for hearing, non-appeared for the assessee and the record shows assessee has been repeatedly served by all possible means but not appearing. Ld. DR has pointed out that earlier report was sought in regard to the reasons recorded.
After considering the orders of Ld. Tax Authorities below it can be appreciated that additions have been made in regard to accommodation entries for which matter was reopened. Additional evidence filed was supplied to the assessing officer and remand report was called. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has duly taken into consideration the fact that assessee failed to discharge the burden as per Section 68 of the Act to establish identity and creditworthiness. There is no material or submission on record to make a different opinion. Findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below are sustained and the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2023.
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 →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
