ITO, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji Vs. Jaikishan Textile Traders LLP
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
The appeal arises against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 17-05-2023 in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052902100(1). The Revenue has appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs.29,61,06,768/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash credit raised during the year. The assessee argued that the capital introduced by the partners was not subject to Section 68 addition as it was properly documented and submitted to the Assessing Officer. The assessee also claimed that no additional evidence was submitted before the CIT(A) / NFAC, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.…
Decision in favour of
Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue
Legal Issues
- 1. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.29,61,06,768/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, on account of unexplained cash credit raised during the year?
- 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that the evidences/documents produced before him would not constitute additional evidences under Rule 46A as the same were not produced before the AO?
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.
Precedents Relied Upon
3 precedents cited in this judgement.
Similar Judgements
M/s. Shree Raj Mahal Gems Private Limited Vs. DCIT Central Circle – 6
Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16AllowedWestwell Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle-2
Kolkata benchAY 2009-10AllowedBennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs Deputy Commission of Income Tax
Mumbai benchRevenue vs. Nipul Sureshchandra Mehta
Mumbai benchAY 2017-18AllowedAnil Rathee vs. Income Tax Officer
Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12Partly AllowedShri Dinesh Narayan Shetty Vs. The Income Tax Officer
SMC-‘A’ Bench, Bangalore benchAY 2017-18Allowed