“Section 142(1)”

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central) Delhi-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi, Delhi

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) dated 22.09.2019 was served upon the assessee followed by notices under Section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire dated 09.12.2020 and 12.06.2021 directing the assessee to furnish the details/information/documents for the relevant assessment years

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-2 Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Delhi

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) dated 22.09.2019 was served upon the assessee followed by notices under Section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire dated 09.12.2020 and 12.06.2021 directing the assessee to furnish the details/information/documents for the relevant assessment years

Humana People to People India, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Exempt 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Humana People To People India, Vs. Dcit, Circle Exempt 1(1), 111/9Z, Kishangarh Village, Delhi Vasant Kunj, South West Delhi, Pin: 1100 02 Delhi-1100 70 Pan :Aaach9111L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disclosing nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2018. Notices under Section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessed. The assessee filed details. After considering objects and activities of the assessee, it was observed that

Smt. Sudha Loyalka, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sudha Loyalka, Vs Ito, Prop.Tirupati Industries, 2/1, Ward-35(2), Block-41, Singh Sabha Road, New Delhi Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. Pan-Aabpl6055D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.12.2016 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-12, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 26/15-16 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 27.09.2012, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 3,52,180/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Reason “Large Amount Of Sundry Creditors”. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Fabrics & Readymade Garments Under The Name & Style As M/S. Tirupati Industries. The Assessee Has Shown Total Sundry Creditors Of Inr 6,77,21,342/- Which Includes Inr 3,48,88,095/- Under The Title “Retail Creditors Control Account”. In Order To Examine The Genuineness Of These Creditors, Ao Issued Notice U/S 133(6) Of The Act To 27 Parties Out Of Which Notices Issued To 20 Parities Amounting To Inr 2,78,20,495/- Were Returned Back For The Reason “Wrong Address/Incomplete Address/Non-Existed” Etc. The Ao Thereafter, Discussed Each Of The Parties To Whom Notices Were Sent & Reached To The Conclusion That These Parties Are Non-Existent & Made The Addition Of Inr 3,50,94,758/- As Bogus Creditors.

creditors were shown as outstanding liabilities in the balance sheet. Despite specific notices issued under section 133(6) and show-cause notices under section 142(1), the assessee failed to file confirmations, produce addresses, or provide any third-party verification to substantiate the liabilities. (ii) On Non-Compliance Despite Sufficient ... inquiries and submitted a detailed report confirming the non-existence or untraceability of most of these parties. Thereafter, a notice was issued under section 142(1), but the assessee did not file a single confirmation or rebuttal from any of the 20 parties. (iii) On Admission by the Assessee During