Shri Satish Kumar HUF, Prop. M/s Ram Bhaj Pansari & Sons vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Rohtak, Haryana

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

This appeal pertains to the assessment year 2014-15, filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram in appeal no. CIT (A), Rohtak/10857/2016-17 dated 13.10.2025. The proceedings involve section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee raised multiple grounds of appeal against the findings of the lower authorities, including issues related to notice under section 143(2), salary disallowance, interest payment disallowance, bogus liabilities, expenditure disallowance, bogus purchases, cash payment disallowance, shortage of stock, and cash difference.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Lack of proper notice under section 143(2)
• 2. Salary disallowance amounting to Rs.91,700/-
• 3. Interest payment disallowance of Rs.5,14,821/-
• 4. Bogus liabilities amounting to Rs.6 lakhs
• 5. Disallowance of expenditure payment of Rs.6,14,877/-
• 6. Bogus purchases amounting to Rs.84,794/-

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Karnal Agricultural Steel Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench 'D' benchAY 2009-10Partly Allowed

• M/s T. C. Agro Food Industries Vs Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘E’ benchAY 2018-19Partly Allowed

• Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2015-16Partly Allowed

• M/s. Microtrans Infratech Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2020-21Partly Allowed

• Bindu, W/o-Shri Mahavir Singh vs National Faceless Appeal Centre

• Smt. Chandra Moolchand Jain Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2)(4), Bangalore

  C Bench, Bangalore benchAY 2015-16Allowed