AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

purchases either drew a blank or as in the case of Shri Vikas Bansal, the facts of bogus accommodation entries were confirmed. Thereafter, a total addition of Rs. 202,30,39,718/- was made by the Ld. AO. 3.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, it was averred that the assessee was only an entry provider and hence should

D M JEWELLERS,GUWAHATI vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022 determining income at Rs. 53,49,810/- by making addition of Rs. 50,33,000/- on account of bogus purchase as per provisions of section

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the 1. T. Act, 1961 (Act) is bad in law, facts and procedure. 2. i) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in arbitrarily confirming the addition made by the ld. AO of Rs. 3,53,35,148/- by invoking provisions of section 69C of the Act. ii) For that in absence