KURUVILLA ALEXANDER,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(1), PUNE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had agreed to the disallowance before the AO, there was no issue to be raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, the ground of appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) received information about hawala dealers and bogus purchase bills obtained by the assessee. The assessee, in a letter to the AO, agreed to a disallowance of Rs. 1,21,501/- for alleged bogus purchases to buy peace of mind.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee can challenge a disallowance of bogus purchases when they had previously agreed to it before the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
आदेश / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-6, Pune, dated 12.01.2018 relating to assessment year 2011-12 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:-
ITA No.644/PUN/2018 2 Kuruvila Alexander
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee upholding the addition made by the A.O. of 100% bogus purchase on the reason that the assessee himself had admitted the said disallowance of bogus purchases. The admission was under mis-conception of law and facts. The reasonable percentage of income be directed to be estimated instead of 100% addition of such bogus purchases.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee after delay of eight days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. In view of the facts and circumstances, we find merit in the plea of assessee and the delay in filing the appeal late by eight days is condoned
Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of various types of Precision Tools and Processing charges thereof. The Assessing Officer received information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra in respect of hawala dealers. The information received also contains the details of beneficiaries of such bogus bills. The persons who have provided entries to various beneficiaries have also filed affidavits before the Sales Tax Department stating therein that they have merely provided entries to these beneficiaries and that no goods as mentioned in the purchase bills were issued by them. As per information received, the assessee had also obtained bogus purchase bills from the entry provider. Notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued to the assessee after recording reasons for reopening of the assessment. The assessee requested that the original return of income filed by the assessee may be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the notice issued, Shri Sanjay Vaidya, C.A. and AR of the assessee attended from time to time and submitted the details as called for from time to time. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee vide his letter dated 12.08.2014 stated as under:-
ITA No.644/PUN/2018 3 Kuruvila Alexander
“…. I am ready to agree to the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,21,501/- as per your perspective to buy peace of mind and request your honour to tax appropriate amount of income with respect to the said alleged bogus purchases as per provisions of the Income Tax Act.”
In view of assessee’s offer, disallowance of ₹ 1,21,501/- was made to the total income of assessee on account of bogus purchases from hawala dealers.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee, in view of assessee having admitted to the aforesaid addition.
The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A).
The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us could not point out any withdrawal made before the Assessing Officer and in view of agreement of assessee itself, there is no question of raising any issue before the Tribunal. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 21st day of January, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 21st January, 2019. GCVSR
ITA No.644/PUN/2018 4 Kuruvila Alexander
आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-6, Pune; 4. The Pr.CIT-5, Pune; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे, एक-सदस्य 5. मामऱा / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026