RAMESH C. SALECHA HUF Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The brief relevant facts of the case are that Assessee HUF has been engaged in the proprietary business of trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and filed its return of income on 29th September 2009, declaring income of Rs.5,45,892/-. Subsequently, the assessing officer has received information from the investigation wing based on the investigation carried out by the sales tax authorities, wherein, they identified bogus billers/accommodation entry providers, and recorded their statements. The list of such bogus billers was shared, with details of beneficiaries, wherein, name of the Assessee was appearing. Accordingly, the assessing officer has reopened the case under section 147 of the Act, by issue of notice under section 148 on 28th March 2013, in compliance to that, assessee vide letter dt 27-09-2013, requested to treat the return of income u/s 139(1) dated 29-09-2009 as compliance to that notice. During the course of assessment proceedings, with reference to statement of hawala operators, the assessee was asked to explain purchases made from three parties: - M/s Ruchi Impacts - M/s Parswan Company - M/s Big Trade Agency with direction to furnish following documents : - ledger account in the books of Account - copy of relevant purchase bills and delivery challans - copy of this tax register for verification - evidence to show the goods purchased have been sold or utilized by the Assessee - bank statement showing payment made for the purchases. In response to that, the…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in restricting the addition made u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to ₹45,91,889/- and deleting the balance addition of ₹4,06,58,264/-
• 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has failed to appreciate that all the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to the alleged suppliers were returned unserved with the remark “Not Known”, clearly indicating that the parties were non-existent and the purchases were not genuine.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Garg Acrylics Ltd Vs. DCIT

  Delhi bench

• SANCHAY JAIN vs. DCIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2020-21Partly Allowed

• Niraj Pravinchandra Doshi Vs ITO,Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2009-10Partly Allowed

• Girish Vrajlal Soni Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

  SMC Bench, Ahmedabad benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Revenue vs. Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi

  Mumbai bench

• Luvkesh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax