Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug
In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed
ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()
For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148
…(1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co- operative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT operative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT operative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT (1993) 109 ITR 17 (Guj). (1993) 109 ITR 17 (Guj). Rajnish Bharti HUF ITA Nos. 3912 & 3941 4377/MUM/2023 4.10 Therefore the onus in the present case s Therefore the onus in the present case squarely lies on quarely lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, said to to prove the genuineness of purchases, said to have been made from the above mentio…