Case LawHigh Court › Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Cir...

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-5 Patna v. Appearance :For The Revenue : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Adv. : Mrs. Archana Sinha

High Court 11 Apr 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-5 Patna v. Appearance :For The Revenue : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Adv. : Mrs. Archana Sinha
Date of order
11 Apr 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-5 Patna v. Appearance :For The Revenue : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Adv. : Mrs. Archana Sinha, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.80 of 2010 ====================================================== ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5 PATNA .... .... Appellant Versus SMT. SAROJ KAPOOR M/S ROSHAN TRADING CORPORATION, SROJ TOWER, JAMAL ROAD, PATNA .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :For the Revenue : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Adv. : Mrs. Archana Sinha For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Rastogi, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. 11-04-2012 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue and affirmed the order of the C.I.T. (A) after discussing all the relevant materials on the basis whereof the C.I.T. (A) had deleted the addition of Rs.22,75,108/- under the head Unexplained liability, of Rs. 11,76,702/- under the head Unexplained Advance from customers and Rs. 1,52,500/- out of addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the head Liability towards Security Deposit from Customers. From the various orders available on record it is apparent that deletion of various additions made by the Assessing Officer was on the basis of remand report which showed that the list of names supplied by the assessee was Fahad./- subjected to sample scrutiny and majority of the parties confirmed the transactions which are in the nature of trade transactions and not cash credit. In the facts of the case issues relating to deletion of various additions stand concluded by findings of fact and no question of law arises for determination in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Vikash Jain, J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan