NEETU,FARIDABAD V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(1), FARIDABAD, HARYANA, FARIDABAD

ITA 1230/DEL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Neetu, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, New Delhi, which upheld the additions made by the assessing officer regarding alleged bogus purchases. The assessing officer had added Rs. 3,01,34,118 as 25% of alleged bogus purchases and Rs. 11,10,532 as 100% of bogus purchases from a party who denied the transaction. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting details, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal found that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to present her case and thus remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474897 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVAM MALIK
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Bogus

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 1230/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1230/Del/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Neetu Plot No. 2, Dharam Kaanta Road, Mujesar, NIT, Faridabad PAN No. AUNPN2965Q Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Shivam Malik, Advocate Department by : Sh. Amit Katoch, SR DR. Date of hearing : 11-12-2024 Date of pronouncement : 12-12-2024 O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI, AM : This appeal for the Assessment Year (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2021-22 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A) ’]. 2 ITA No. 1230/Del/2024 2. Following grounds are raised in this appeal: - “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order of the assessing officer with respect to addition of Rs. 3,01,34,118/-, being 25% of the alleged bogus purchase without appreciating the evidence filed on record. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order of the assessing officer with respect to addition of Rs. 11,10,532/-, being 100% of the alleged bogus purchase with Mr. Raju merely due to his denial of the transaction. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice to any other ground, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to note that only the profit element can be added in a case of alleged bogus purchase. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any ground during the course of the proceeding.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 10.02.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 8,86,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was finalized at an income of Rs. 3,21,31,300/- after making addition of Rs. 3,01,34,118/- being 25% of bogus purchases as well as Rs. 11,10,532/- on account of 100% of bogus purchases from one party which denied the transaction. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2024 as the assessee did not file any details in support of her claim despite several opportunities given by the Ld. CIT(A). 3 ITA No. 1230/Del/2024 5. Aggrieved with the dismissal, the assessee is in appeal before us. Ld. AR has submitted that proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee by Ld. CIT(A) and therefore prayed for remitting the case back for fresh adjudication. Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 12th December, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12-12-2024 *Binita, Sr.P.S.* Copy of order to: - 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT 4) The CIT(A) 5) The CIT-DR, I.T.A.T., New Delhi//True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, New Delhi "