“Section 133(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 133Section 133(6)6,687 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 133(6) is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 133(6)

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court

1,465

citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court

897

citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO

236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court

862

citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court

854

citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.

349 ITR 98 · 2012 · High Court

818

citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court

712

citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.

103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court

696

citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court

525

citing judgments

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

Judgments citing Section 133(6)

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are

ITA 2165/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) Dcit Cc – 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम M/S. Tirupati Developers. 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (W.), Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रति आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 110/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Tirupati Developers. V/S. Dcit Cc – 7(3), 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi बनाम Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Industrial Estate, New Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Link Road, Andheri (W.), Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rushabh Mehta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025 Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Victory Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5534/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

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

Anupam Mittal, Agra vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘DB’ AGRA (Through Physical/Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sanjeev Kumar Azad, Danapur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/PAT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.247/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sanjeev Kr. Azad.………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Flat No.302, Radhe-Krishna Apartment, Goal Road, Danapur, Bihar-801503 [Pan: Aicpa9561G] Vs. Assessment Unit, Nfac, Delhi……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Shankar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2022-23 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,50,000. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Case Was Subsequently Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Based On The Reason That Substantial Cash Deposits Had Been Made In The Assessee'S Current Account, Disproportionate To The Returned Income. Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted That The

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250

formed the view that the assessee was engaged in undisclosed business activity and had not declared any income there from. A notice under section 133(6) was issued to SBI, but no response was received. Based on the available material, and considering the bank's uploaded Form 61A verified

M/S Chhanabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 757/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 41(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Danda Nagendra Kumar, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 306/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 08/07/2025 seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee had explained the reasons that prevented him in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paras from the said affidavit are extracted as under:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, माननीय

Syed Irfan Hazari, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 305/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. Considering 3 Syed Irfan Hazari the aforesaid factual position, the A.O. issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the banks, calling for the statements of the bank accounts of the assessee for the subject year. In the meantime

Barigala Saroja, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 472/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 24/01/2025 and explained the reasons for such delay. For the sake of immediate reference, the contents of the said affidavit are extracted herein below: "1.......

Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

ITO, Ward - 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Gayatri Cottex Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 688/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Bavishi, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 57

made by AO on account of bogus purchase despite the fact that: (i) the vendors failed to respond to Section 133(6) notices during the assessment proceedings. (ii) the assessee failed to produce primary evidence, such as invoices, delivery challans, and payment proofs, to establish the genuineness of the purchases ... disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the concerned parties did not respond to the notice under Section 133(6) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer and did not confirm the transaction. However, the assessee had filed a copy of the ledger account and balance confirmation

Shubham Trading Company, Nizamabad vs. ITO., Ward 1, Nizamabad

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

ITA 840/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Saratha, SR-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 23.03.2019. During reassessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, seeking confirmation regarding the genuineness of the payments towards

Vellaikannu Rajagounder Subramaniam, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vellore

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

ITA 1307/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vellaikannu Rajagounder Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Subramaniam, No. 4, New Street, Ward 3, Thirunagar, Gandhinagar, Vellore. Vellore 632 006. [Pan:Abtps6539A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 248 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

time stipulated in the notice and thus, the Assessing Officer treated the ROI as invalid. After examining the bank statement obtained under section 133(6) of 3 I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/25 the Act, the Assessing Officer extracted the details of cash deposit made by the assessee at page

M/S. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-20(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1306/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1305/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1306/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2016-17 M/S.Trac Media Pvt Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of No.35, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kalaimagal Nagar, Corporate Circle-20(1), Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aadct4184G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit(Virtual) & Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT(Virtual) &

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि

M/S. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-20(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1305/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT(Virtual) &

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56

Mallya Real Estates P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

ITA 6158/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 68

nominal amount and many of them were not even making profits. The summons issued under section 131 to those parties and notice under section 133(6) to Amsons returned back. Thus, appellant failed to produce Amsons or entities making investment in Amsons on its behalf. This leads to the inevitable ... establish creditworthiness of investor companies. 13. The assessee's second assertion that merely because the summons under section 131 and notice under section 133(6) have not been complied with, cannot be a ground for doubting the identity and veracity of transactions, is also misplaced. We find that such

Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2069/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 69C

despite Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– being specifically asked for. To independently verify the claims, notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were sent to all the parties involved, and the Designated Verification Unit (DVU) was directed to conduct physical verification of these ... goods took place from these parties. Further, the DVU (Designed Verification Unit) also conducted physical verification of these parties by issuing notices under Section 133(6) of the Act and no response was received from these parties, which further lends support to the fact that these parties were not genuine