JYOTI PRAKASH DAS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 102/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18
Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Prakash Das Dcit, Circle-3, Guwahati Kumud Enclave, Nawaram Vs. Kakati Path, Rehabari, Guwahati-781008. Pan: Ajipd 5193 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2020 Of Ld. Cit(A), Guwahati-2 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1(A). That Neither The Learned Assessing Officer Was Justified In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,43,73,603/- On Account Of Proportionate Direct Expenses & Adding The Same In The Closing Stock Of The Appellant Nor The Learned Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Aforesaid Disallowance/Addition.
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69C
10
Jyoti Prakash Das
A.Y. 2017-18
Officer nor the CIT(Appeal) has disbelieved the genuineness of the transaction. There was no dispute that the purchases were genuine.”
Anupam Tete Services vs ITO in (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 199
(Guj):
"Section 40A( 3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance
