M/s Fancy Wear v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 24 (3) (1)

87 Taxmann.com 183Reported decision2017#10005 most cited

What is M/s Fancy Wear v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 24 (3) (1) authority for?

The addition for unexplained expenditure or purchases cannot be made solely on the basis of the supplier's failure to appear before the tax authorities, especially if the assessee has discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. Merely returning notices issued under Section 133(6) is insufficient to declare purchases as bogus.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Fancy Wear v. Income-tax Officer · Section 133(6) · Section 69C · unexplained expenditure · bogus purchases · genuineness of transaction · onus of proof · supplier non-appearance · ITAT Mumbai

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing M/s Fancy Wear v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 24 (3) (1)

Omega It Resources Pvt, Trichy vs. Assessing Unit Income Tax, Department, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1531/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1531/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Income Tax Officer, Omega It Resources Pvt Ltd., V. Che-W-(191)(1), 109, Vignesh Apartments, Chennai. Veereswaram Approach Road, Srirangam, Trichy – 620 006. [Pan: Aabco-7735-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. A.S. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 37Section 40A(2)(b)

…the assessee filed a written submissions and reiterated the arguments made before the Assessing Officer. The assessee also relied upon case laws which are reproduced as under: (i) Havells India Ltd vs DCIT (TS-825-ITAT2022(Del)). (ii) Fancy Wear vs ITO [2017] 87 Taxmann.com 183 (iii) Sonicwall Technology System India Pvt Ltd vs ACIT ITA No. 3860/Mum/2019 (iv) M/s. Kesha Appliances Pvt Ltd vs ITO, ITA No. 2175/Del/216. 5. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the written submissions and case laws relied upon by the assessee held that, the assessee is failed to prove the genuineness of expenses claimed and case laws re…

M/s Fancy Wear v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 24 (3) (1) (87 Taxmann.com 183) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax