Dismissed

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 v. Anil Mahavir Gupta

Bombay HC15 Nov 2021ITXA/1975/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this appeal filed by the Pr. CIT challenging the ITAT's order deleting an addition under Section 68 for unexplained credits. The court held that the ITAT did not act perversely in accepting the assessees' explanation given the retraction of creditors' statements. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 Vs Anil Mahavir Gupta — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2021.11.17 10:32:41 +0530

¶2

411-itxa-1975-17.doc

¶3

1 / 2

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1975 OF 2017

¶6

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-4 ….Appellant

¶7

 V/s.
Anil Mahavit Gupta…Respondent

¶8

----

¶9

Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant
None for Respondent

¶10

 ----

¶11

 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ
 DATED : 15th NOVEMBER 2021

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 At the outset, we have to note that this appeal has been filed against

¶14

two concurrent findings against respondent, one by CIT (Appeals) and
thereafter by ITAT. Appellant is impugning an order dated 31st August 2016

¶15

passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai.

¶16

2 Appellant has proposed the following substantial question of law:-

¶17

“(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made in the assessment order in respect of unexplained sundry creditors u/s 68 of I.T. Act of Rs.24,03,56,882/- without appreciating that the parties from whom purchases are said to have been made had categorically accepted that they had given accommodation entries to the assessee ?”

¶18

3 Respondent was carrying on business of trading in various steel

¶19

products as sole proprietor in the name and style of M/s Gupta Steel
Corporation. In the course of assessment proceedings for AY.-2006-2007,
the Assessing Officer considered the maximum credit balance standing in

¶20

the names of 8 creditors at Rs.24,03,56,882/- as unexplained credits within

¶21

Meera Jadhav

¶22

411-itxa-1975-17.doc

¶23

2 / 2

¶24

the meaning of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act). The
primary reason to hold that these aforesaid credits as unexplained was that
the creditors are alleged to have admitted before the department that they
have provided to respondent accommodation transactions only and thus,
respondent had not made any actual purchases from the said creditors.

¶25

Admittedly, these creditors have later retracted the statement given by
them and in paragraph 13.5 of the impugned order, ITAT has provided
details of the 8 parties and the say of respondent on each of them.

¶26

4There has been a finding of fact that after such retraction by creditors
and recording of their statement by the Assessing Officer, there is nothing
brought on record by the Revenue to disprove that such retractions are
untenable or bad in the eyes of law. Even today there is nothing before us
produced by the Revenue to prove that such retractions have to be ignored.
6In our view, the ITAT has not committed any perversity or applied
incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances
are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand,
then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial
question of law.

¶27

7The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as to
costs.

¶28

(AMIT B. BORKAR, J)

¶29

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶30

Meera Jadhav

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 v. Anil Mahavir Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 v. Anil Mahavir Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Bhanubhai Shah Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax Xv Mumbai

Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the National Faceless Assessment Centre and 2 Others

Asian Paints Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax LTU-2 and 2 Ors.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -32 Vs Rps Chirag Nt (Consortium)

The Commissioner of Income TAX-9 Vs M/S Globatronix (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-2 Vs Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd.