Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Prathibha Jewellery House, ... on 26 June, 2020
9.1 The applicant had further stated that the sales made
by him are genuine sales, the payments in respect of the
sales had been received via banking channels and has been
duly recorded in the books of the appellant. He has also
stated that the appellant has paid VAT on the sales which
was 20% of the sales and submitted VAT returns reconciling
the same with the sales. The appellant has also submitted
various case laws in his support stating that the sales
cannot be treated as bogus unless the purchases or stocks
shown by him are found to be un-explained. The Assessing
Officer did not point out any mistake in the purchases or in
the inventory or in the VAT return filed by the appellant
4
I.T.A. No. 1548/Del/2022
and therefore, the sale shown by him in the P&L account
should not have been treated as bogus sales. I am of the
opinion that the sales cannot be added under section 68
unless they are proved as bogus on the basis of some
reliable evidence. The reliance is placed on the decision of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi in ITA 613/2010 in the
matter of CIT v/s Kailash Jewellery House.
Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1