THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MUTYALA JEWELLERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 75/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble
For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)
bogus nature of the bills.
4. The CIT(A) ought to have observed that the explanation given by the assessee in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that some purchases are not recorded in the purchase register has no value in the absence of details thereof.
5. The CIT(A) ought to have observed that
