BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2361/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 March 2026AY 2017-1822 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid. The AO had not applied his mind to the information received from the DDIT (Investigation) and had not independently established that the word 'Bora' or 'Bora Agro' mentioned in the impounded documents referred to the assessee, Bora Agro Foods. The Tribunal noted that Shri Abhay Kele, in his statement, had identified other persons but had not identified 'Bora' or 'Bora Agro' as Bora Agro Foods. This indicated a lack of a rational connection or live link between the material and the formation of the belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO's reasons did not even indicate the amount of escaped income, suggesting a fishing inquiry rather than a reasonable belief. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court decisions in *S. Narayanappa* and *ITO v. Lakhmani Merwal Das* to emphasize the requirement of a rational connection and live link. Therefore, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed. Ground No. 2 became academic and was dismissed. The appeals were partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bora Agro Foods, filed three appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, challenging separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC]. These orders pertained to assessment years 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2016-17, and were dated August 27, 2025, August 20, 2025, and August 20, 2025, respectively. The appeals were heard together due to common issues. The core of the dispute involved the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on documents seized during a search on the Kele Group. The assessee contested the AO's jurisdiction and the merits of the addition.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions: 1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid, considering the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment. - Assessee's contention: The reopening was invalid because it was based on documents seized during a search on a third party (Kele Group), and the AO should have resorted to Section 153C instead of Section 148. Reliance was placed on the Bombay High Court decision in *Sejal Jewelery* and the ITAT Pune decision in *Vijayakumar Chordiya*. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- made by the AO on account of interest received from M/s. Manasvi Enterprises, which was allegedly not accounted for in the assessee's books, was justified. - Assessee's contention: The addition was not justified as the assessee had not given any loan to Manasvi Enterprises, hence no interest income arose. Furthermore, no corroborative evidence was found during the search on Kele Group to support the receipt of interest income, and Shri Abhay Kele had filed an affidavit confirming no loan was borrowed from the assessee. The notings on seized papers did not pertain to the assessee firm. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 3. Whether the addition made under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable and justified. - Assessee's contention: The provisions of Section 69A were not applicable, and therefore, the addition should have been deleted. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 153C,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar – CIT(DR)
Hearing: 29/01/2026Pronounced: 11/03/2026

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These three appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) [NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2015-16, A.Y.2017-18 and A.Y.2016-17 dated 27.08.2025, 20.08.2025 and 20.08.2025 respectively. Assessee has filed identical grounds for all these years. Since the issue involved is common, all these appeals were heard together and decided by the common order. We treat Appeal in ITA No.2361/PUN/2025 for A.Y.2017-18 as lead case.

The Assesse

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →