Tally
coaching
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

ACIT, Circle- 28(1), New Delhi Mohit Saraogi, New Delhi

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT New Delhi

Brief :
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi dated 20.09.2017 pertaining to assessment year2014-15. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-

Citation :
ITA 7381/DEL/2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.7381/Del/2017
Assessment Year : 2014-15

ACIT,
Circle-28(1),
New Delhi-110002.
APPELLANT 

Vs

Sh.Mohit Saraogi,
C-676, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi-110065.
PAN-AOFPS2703D
RESPONDENT

Appellant by Ms. Aman Preet, Sr.DR
Respondent by Sh.Bhupender Jit Kumar, Adv.

Date of Hearing 22.03.2021
Date of Pronouncement 26.03.2021

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi dated 20.09.2017 pertaining to assessment year2014-15. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in deleting addition of Rs.2,04,36,269/- made bythe Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases withoutappreciating the facts that the physical verification of the address ofthe referred three creditors has revealed that their addresses were locked and uninhabited for previous many years.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by overlooking the fact that the above threeparties have purchased the raw materials from the same parties who also do not exist on their declared business premise. 

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by overlooking the fact that the referred three creditors having trade turnover in crores have employed only one employee and exist without maintaining any godown or without having any contractual transporter to transfer goods to purchasers.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by overlooking the fact that the referred three creditors are running their business from same premise i.e. D-193, Gali No.8, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and are related to each other. Ms. Pooja Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Pooja Fashions and Sh.Pankaj Jain, Director of M/s. Expo Fabs Pvt.Ltd. are children of Smt. Heeramani Jain. All family members are running their business with different entities from the same place.”

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 19 April 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 21
downloaded 2 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags