Income Tax Officer, Ward-50(1), Room No. 1408, E-2, Block, Dr. S. P. M. Civic Centre, New Delhi vs The Silk Factory, Central Circle-29, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee declared an income of Rs. 44,62,810/- in its return of income. The case was reopened based on information received under the risk management strategy of CBDT, indicating that the assessee had purchased bogus bills from M/s Rajshree Vanijaya Udyog, a non-existent entity. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order adding Rs. 2,88,52,563/- on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who deleted the addition. The Revenue then appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the Revenue's appeal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Addition of bogus purchases of Rs. 2,88,52,563/- made by AO on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the I.T. Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• M/s Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 5(1)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2016-17 & 2018-19Allowed

• Sultania Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. I.T.O., Ward 5(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata ‘D’ Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2018-19Partly Allowed

• Nevin H. Bharwani v/s Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)

• Dinesh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon, Haryana

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Dipa Prakashkumar Velani vs. Assessment Unit through Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

  Ahmedabad bench

• ITO VS ANNAMALAI