PUSHPA SALUJA, VS. ITO, WARD 45(4)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

This appeal by the assessee, Pushpa Saluja, arises from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi in appeal No. 322/16-17 dated 23.9.2019. The assessment was framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.03.2024 relating to assessment year 2014-15. The AO doubted the bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 55,54,382/- and required the assessee to produce sundry creditors, which the assessee claims to have done by providing confirmations, bills, and vouchers. The AO, however, treated the amount as bogus purchases due to the assessee's failure to produce other sundry creditors. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions, noting the assessee's history of bogus purchases in previous years.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the additions made under Section 68 of the Act are sustainable.
• 2. Whether any allowance is required to be made for purchases if the sundry creditors did not supply goods on credit.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Income Tax Officer, Rohtak vs Vijender Goyal

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2021-22Dismissed

• M/s. Midnapur Timber Traders Vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

  Kolkata ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2022-23Allowed

• Upright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Singh Construction Corporation Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2

  Kolkata benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Aman Jain vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 34(5), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2021-22Allowed

• Santosh Laujari Gupta Vs ITO – 33(3)(3)

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2009-10Partly Allowed