{"id":60602,"date":"2026-06-08T13:08:28","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T07:38:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/r-s-alloys-v-ito-2025-307-taxman-70-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2026-06-08T13:08:28","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T07:38:28","slug":"r-s-alloys-v-ito-2025-307-taxman-70-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/r-s-alloys-v-ito-2025-307-taxman-70-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"R. S. Alloys v. ITO (2025) 307 Taxman 70 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Notice under section 148A(1) was issued alleging that the assessee had entered into bogus transactions involving accommodation entries with Karthik Alloys Pvt Ltd (KAPL) during the financial year 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 88.86 lakhs. Assessee replied and sought the opportunity to hear. Assessing Officer, after perusing the reply and documentary evidence, held that mere maintenance of books and documents does not rule out discrepancies in purchases; KAPL was a defaulter and debtor of huge payments; had filed return only for one year showing \u2018nil\u2019 income and \u2018nil\u2019 profit, and its huge transactions were not commensurate with the ITR filed by it. Assessing Officer held that\u00a0 purchases from KAPL were sham and income had escaped assessment-Whether genuineness of transaction was a pure question of fact requiring scrutiny in reassessment; there was no violation of natural justice since opportunity was granted; sufficiency of material was beyond judicial review; and Assessing Officer had sufficient information to initiate proceedings, reassessment was justified. (AY. 2019-20)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Cash credits-Accommodation entries-Opportunity of hearing was given-Reassessment notice is affirmed-Writ petition dismissed. [S. 68, 143(1),  148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fLs","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60602"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60602\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60603,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60602\/revisions\/60603"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}