How many judgments cite Diagnostics v. CIT?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite Diagnostics v. CIT (334 ITR 111), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Diagnostics v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 133(6), Section 14A.

Diagnostics v. CIT

334 ITR 111High Court2011#2475 most cited

What is Diagnostics v. CIT authority for?

A party's non-appearance or inability to be found at an address three years after a transaction does not, by itself, prove the party does not exist or that the transaction is not genuine, especially when payments were made via account payee cheques.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Diagnostics v CIT · section 131 · section 147 · genuine transaction · non-appearance of party · account payee cheques · summons not served · party not found · bona fide transaction · creditworthiness of payee

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 69256 DTR 317

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 133(6)Section 14A Section 80IC Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

amp expenditure section 92ba true and full disclosure sanction under section 151 section 148(2)transfer pricing order fresh tangible material sanctioning authority material facts necessary for assessment first proviso to section 147 section 151(1)section 40a(2)(b)

Judgments citing Diagnostics v. CIT

Tejraj Manroop Chand Tak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6769/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalata

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

…20 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt. CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 997 of 2008, dated 27/01/2009],CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal.), ITO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2-2010], Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.), CIT v. Precious Jewels Corpn. 17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CIT v. Rajesh P. Soni [Tax Appeal No.1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012. 9. On identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Cou…

Vaishali Prakash Muni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 378/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)

…0 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt. CITv. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mill's (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 997 of 2008, dated 27/01/2009], CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (CaL), HO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2- 2010], Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.), CIT v. Precious Jewels Corpn. 17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CIT v. Rajesh P. Soni [Tax Appeal No. 1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012. 11. On identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Co…

Hitesh H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4756/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrir. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4756, 4757& 4758/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11& 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri NeelkanthFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi

Section 147

…20 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt. CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 997 of 2008, dated 27/01/2009],CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal.), ITO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2-2010], Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.), CIT v. Precious Jewels Corpn. 17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CIT v. Rajesh P. Soni [Tax Appeal No.1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012. 15. On identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'bleJurisdictional High Cou…

Shankar Jhalani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 40

…re finding of fact. Thus, in this decision also, the trading addition is upheld by application of G.P. rate of the previous year. 4. Reliance is further placed on the following cases:- ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 18 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO Diagnostics Vs. CIT & Anr. 56 DTR 317 dt. 04.03.2011 (Cal) (HC) Assessee made payment for purchases from various parties by account payee cheque as well as by cash. AO gave an opportunity to the appellant to produce these parties for verification of the claim, but none of them appeared before the AO. Accordingly, he made the addition by treating the claim as fictitious. It was held t…

ITO 32(1)5, Mumbai vs. Indubhai Purshotam Das Vora (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3179/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…hould be applied and thus partly sustained the addition at Rs.3,52,968/- on the ground that the assessee itself declared GP of 2.61% during the year. While coming to this conclusion, the ld.CIT(A) followed the decision in the cases of (i) Diagnostics V/s CIT (334 ITR 111), (ii) M/s Nikunj Enterprises (372 ITR 619(Bom) and (iii) Sarawathi Oil Traders V/s CIT 254 ITR 259 (SC). 6. The ld. DR contended before us that the ld.CIT(A) did not consider facts on record that the purchases were bogus and made from the parties whose names were listed in the website of Sales Tax Department of 5 I . T . A . N o . 3 1 7 8 a n d…

ITO 32(1)5, Mumbai vs. Indubhai Purshotam Das Vora (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2861/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2, Meerut B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Acit, Vs. B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Circle-2, Meerut Pioneer Partapur, Meerut Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Pan:Aabcp3296R B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri HC Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 133Section 143Section 271Section 68

…llahabad high court wherein it has been held that the payments have been made by cheque and were reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee no adverse inferences could be drawn. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 334 ITR 111 wherein it has been held that if an assessee purchase material by way of account payee cheques from a 3rd party and subsequently 3 years after the purchases said party did not appear before the assessing officer pursuant to the notice or even has stopped business, the claim of the assessee on that account could not be discarded as non- existent.…

DCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Janki Newsprint Ltd., Meerut

In the result, the both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4938/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: 1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld

…Taxmann 0141 (2014), it has been held that if the payments have been made by cheques and are reflected in the books of account of the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. In a judgment given by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Diagnostics Vs CIT 334 ITR 111 on a similar question, it has been held by the Hon'ble Court that ''if an assessee took care to purchase material by way of account payee cheques from a third party and subsequently, three years after the purchase, the said third party does not appear before the AO pursuant to the notice or even has stopped business, the claim of the assessee on…

Geolife Organics, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of all the assessees are allowed in part

ITA 3699/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Geolife Organics Vs. Acit – 23(2), Mumbai- 301, Marathon Max, 400051 L.B.S.Marg, Opp. Nirmal Lifestyle, Mulund(W), Mumbai – 400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aahfg7722N Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Vikram N. Chandan, Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5), Mumbai- Shop No.756/54, Nanubhai 400 007 Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Acypc2583N Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Jabarsingh B Daiya, Vs. Ito – 19(2)(1), Mumbai – R.No.16, 1St Floor, Mulji 400 007 Madhavji Building, 160, C.P.Tank Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Ahypd4454E Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Rajendra Nemichandji Vs. Ito – 19(3)(1), Mumbai – Chandan, 38, Ground Floor, 400 007 Alankar Building, 245/247, Khetwadi Lane, S.V.P. Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aeypc6575L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Geolife Organics, Mumbai & Others

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…20 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt. CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 997 of 2008, dated 27/01/2009],CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal.), ITO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2-2010], Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.), CIT v. Precious Jewels Corpn. 17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CIT v. Rajesh P. Soni [Tax Appeal No.1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012. 11. On identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Co…

ITO 13(2)-3, Mumbai vs. Aaren Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, as above

ITA 6382/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri Snehal Shah

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ough banking channels and the sale of goods so purchased is not in dispute, the onus of appellant is discharged and it is for the AO to prove that the expenditure was not genuine or that the sundry creditor was bogus. In the case of Diagnostics vs. CIT (2011) 56 DTR 317(Cal), where the assessee purchased materials for its business by way of account payee cheque from third party and, subsequently, the parties did not appear before the assessing authorities as they had discontinued their business, the Hon'ble High Court held that assessee’s claim of genuine business 9 M/s. Aren Chemicals, expenditure could not…

ITO 13(2)-3, Mumbai vs. Aaren Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, as above

ITA 6381/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri Snehal Shah

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5293/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

…163 ITR 249 (5) Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Radhika Creations (ITA No.692/2009) The Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of ITO v Permanand ' reported at 107 TTJ 395 The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Diagnostics v CIT reported; at 334 ITR 111 The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of YFC Project Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 46 DTR 496 / 134 TTJ 167 (Delhi) 5 M/s. Metcraft Engineering Corporation The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Free India Assurance Services Ltd v DCIT reported at 62 DTR 349/(2011) 12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum) ; The Hon'ble ITAT,…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Manjula S. Shah, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7220/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

Section 133(6)Section 69C

…ion 145(3) was justified; however, there was no justification for ,application of 25 per cent GP rate as done by the Assessing Officer as profits' margin in such cases was low." (iv) The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Diagnostics v CIT 4ported at 334 ITR 111 has held that - "However, as regards the payments made to M/s. Selvas Photographics are concerned amounting to Rs. 3,12,302, we find that those have been made by account payee cheques and those have been encashed through the bankers of M/s. Selvas Photographics. It appears that according to the appellant, at the time of assessment, the appellant…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3604/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

ACIT-21(1), Mumbai vs. Karan Builders & Associated, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1432/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Acit- 21(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Karan Builders & Associates, 31, Jaihind Cottage, Shahji Raje Marg, Vile Parle – E, Mumbai - 57 Pan/Gir No. Aaffk5037N Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

…to the production of the parties in person only. If the payments is supported by bills and made through banking channels and they have filed replies to the notices issued, it will indicate the genuineness of the payments. In case of Diagnostics vs. CIT (2011) 56 DTR 317 (Cal)(High Court}, where the assessee purchased materials for his business by way of account payee cheque from third party and subsequently the parties do not appear before the assessing authorities as they had discontinued their business, the court held that assessee's claim of genuine business expenditure cannot be disallowed for their non exist…

ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata vs. Shri Biswajit Guha, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

ITA 355/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…l. There was also no defect in the books of account of assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we also rely in the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Diagnostics vs. CIT & ANR (2011) 334 ITR 111 (Cal). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below : “So far as the purchases from SE and INT were concerned, the alleged payments being made in cash and the amount involved being Rs. 50,675 and Rs. 1,00,737 respectively during the relevant assessment year and at the same time, the appellant having failed to produce any of the partie…

M/S India Finance Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - VIII, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 678/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ot support the case of the assessee on merits of the issue for the Asst Year 2009-10. 8 India Finance Ltd., AY 2009-10 3.9. The ld AR also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- Diagonostics vs CIT & Anr reported in (2011) 334 ITR 111 (Cal) Addl CIT vs Bahri Brothers (P) Ltd reported in (1985) 154 ITR 244 (Pat) Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & Anr reported in (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) ITO vs Sri Kalin Dutta in ITA NO. 1055/Kol/2013 dated 10.6.2016 (Kolkata Tribunal) DCIT vs Sunita Khemka in ITA Nos. 714 to 718 /Kol/2011 dated 28.10.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) We find that in all the af…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2225/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2009-10 Dy.Cit, Central Circle 1 Vs. Piyush Developers P.Ltd. Faridabad A 16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op.Industrial Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi Pan: Aaecp 2788 B & Ay: 2009-10 Dy.Cit, C.C.1 Vs. Ridge Housing India Pvt.Ltd. Faridbad A 16/B1, Mohan Coop Indl.Road New Delhi Pan: Aadcr 3225 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2009-10 Dy.CIT, Central Circle 1 vs. Piyush Developers P.Ltd. Faridabad A 16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op.Industrial Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi PAN: AAECP 2788 B And AY: 2009-10 Dy.CIT, C.C.1 vs. Ridge Housing India Pvt.Ltd. Faridbad A 16/B1, Mohan Coop Indl.road New Delhi PAN: AADCR 3225 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.R. Respondent by : None ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Both these appeals are filed b…

Addl CIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Indervadan H Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is allowed in part

ITA 103/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnoo

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…(SC) (iv) Hon'be Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Chari N Chari reported in 57 ITR 400(SC) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Leader Valves P Ltd (vi) Balaji Textile Industries (P) vs Third income Tax Officer (vii) Diagnostics vis. CIT reported in 334 ITR 111 Culcutta (viii) Gujarat Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs CIT reported in 316 ITR 274 (IX) Gujarat DCIT vs Adinath Industries reported in 252 ITR 476 (x) CtT vs M K Bras reported in 163 ITR 249 (Guj) (xi) 134 TT J 167 Delhi CTR Volume 50 Part VI page 39 I have gone through the above decision which supports the case of the appellant. In view of the abo…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1871/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Circle-1, Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut. Gangol Road, Partapur, Meerut. (Pan: Aaaag0147K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R.K. Garg, Adv. Department By: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 .12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revenue Has Questioned First Appellate Order Whereby The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.4,51,24,795 Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unconfirmed Liability. 2. In Support Of The Ground, The Learned Senior Dr Has Placed Reliance On The Assessment Order With The Submission That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Accepted The Version Of The Assessee Regarding Unconfirmed Balances Of Sundry Creditors Worth Rs.4,51,24,795 Without Proper Verification Of The Fact.

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 44A

…creditors to reply to the A.O. It is evident from the assessment order that the A.O. did not take any action fro his side to enforce attendance of the sundry creditors. In a judgment given by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Diagnostics vs. CIT 334 ITR 111 on a similar question, it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that “if an assessee took care to purchase material by way of account payee cheques from a third party and subsequently, three years after the purchase, the said third party does not appear before the A.O. pursuant to the noticeor even has stopped 6 business, the claim of the assessee…