ITA No.3849/Del/2016

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The case pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against the First Appellate order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-4, New Delhi, which reversed additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had made additions of INR 3 crore and INR 3,00,000/- towards estimated commission on an alleged accommodation entry. The assessee, M/s. Garg Alumino Pvt. Ltd., had challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. The assessee argued that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were vague, indefinite, and not based on any tangible material. The assessee also provided documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transactions.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO was valid.
• 2. Whether the additions made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were justified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• ACIT, Circle 23 (2) vs. Signature Global (India) Pvt. Ltd.

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17Dismissed

• Balakrishnan Ramanathan vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Erode

• Anil Kr. Jain vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Ramasamy Kandasamy v. The ITO

  Chennai benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd.

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