This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Incomplete Rule 46A Verification Leads to Fresh Inquiry Into ₹7 Crore Purchases
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- ITO Vs Smt. Manisha Dixit (ITAT Hyderabad)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2021-22
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Hyderabad
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
ITO Vs Smt. Manisha Dixit (ITAT Hyderabad)
Rule 46A Evidence Needs Proper Scrutiny- One-Party Verification Not Enough: ITAT Sends Rs.7 Crore Purchase Case Back to AO
Assessee, proprietor of Sri Mallikarjuna Steels, declared income of Rs.15,02,320. AO treated purchases of Rs.7,00,52,477 from thirteen parties as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C on the ground that Assessee did not furnish bills, transportation memos, ledger accounts & payment proofs despite specific requisition. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B.
Before CIT(A), Assessee submitted large volume of a...
Author Info
