INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 46(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. MAM RAJ CHUNNI LAL EXIM, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs Mam Raj Chunni Lal Exim Ward- 46 (1) Shop No. 5183, Ground New Delhi Floor, Lahori Gate, Naya Bazar, Delhi -110006 Pan No.Aaxfm0533B (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchases and Rs.44,66,376/- on account of unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC, who vide its order dated 11-07-2024 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the revenue preferred the appeal before the tribunal

ADESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 62(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 of the appeal is partly

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Adesh Kumar Gupta Ito, Ward-62(1), Delhi House No. 6, Sector -11, Pocket-C- Vs Civic Centre, Delhi – 110002. 5, Rohini, Delhi – 110085. [Pan: Aaipg9669H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

151A of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT appeal has erred both in law and on facts in the case in upholding the addition on account of aggregate purchases of Rs. 13,01,2016/- made from entities allegedly controlled by Sh Sanjay Jain as bogus purchase

ITO, WARD 47(1), DELHI vs. PURE AGRI WORLD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 5379/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Ito, Pure Agri World, 2618/19, 2Nd Floor, Ward 47(1), Vs. Delhi. Maruti Bhawan, Naya Bazar, Delhi. Pan No.Aaofp2516N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.54/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5379/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Pure Agri World, Ito, 2618/19, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 47(1), Maruti Bhawan, Delhi. Naya Bazar, Delhi. Pan No.Aaofp2516N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

purchases are bogus. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not submitted delivery challan showing the date and delivery of goods, signature of buyer for acknowledgement of receipt of goods, quality certificate of goods sold, payment records, tax documents etc. in addition to the purchase/sales invoice etc. 6. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another

MANAK CHAND DAGA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment

bogus and proceeded to disallow the purchases and made the addition of Rs.8,79,843/-. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed the detailed submissions before him with grounds of appeal. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not complied to the various notices for hearing issued

MANAK CHAND DAGA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed the detailed submissions before him with grounds of appeal. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not complied to the various notices for hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A), since, no representation was forthcoming from the assessee side, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue based on the information available on record. Accordingly, he sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

bogus and proceeded to disallow the purchases and made the addition of Rs.8,79,843/-. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed the detailed submissions before him with grounds of appeal. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not complied to the various notices for hearing issued