Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : ITO Vs Ashok Kumar Gupta (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 3291/Del/2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/07/2023
Related Assessment Year : 2003-04
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

ITO Vs Ashok Kumar Gupta (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT Delhi held that addition of cash credits in various bank accounts deleted by CIT(A) without verifying the persons/firm/Companies from whom the alleged amount has been credited is bad-in-law. Accordingly, matter resorted to the file of AO.

Facts- The assessment proceedings of the assessee were reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act on the basis of information received from DI (INV.) that the bank account of the assessee maintained with Ratnakar Bank Karol Bagh, was credited by cheques with an amount of Rs. 6,71,84,200/-. After recording the reasons, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued, no compliance was being made by the assessee, therefore, it was held by the A.O. that the assessee had given its unaccounted cash to the entry providers and the same had been received by cheques.

After considering the facts of the case, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 6,71,84,200/- as income from undisclosed sources. Similarly M/s New General Trading Co. and M/s Nupur Enterprises, information was also received by the then AO from DIT (Inv.) that amounts of Rs. 2,07,34,000/- and Rs. 2,21,39,000/- respectively were found credited in the bank a/c of the assessee through instrument/cheques issued by different parties. After recording the reasons, notice u/s 148 were issued. As no compliance was made to the notices, therefore, the AO had completed the assessment in these cases u/s 144/147 at Rs. 2,07,34,900 (in the case of M/s New General Trading Co.) and at Rs. 2,21,39,000/- (in the case of M/s Nupur Enterprises).

In compliance with the direction made u/s 263 of the Act, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 263/143(3) of the Act by adding an amount of Rs. 11,00,58,100/- to the income of the assessee as the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031