MANTORA OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. JCIT (OSD)/DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE II, KANPUR

These three appeals vide 656 & 657/Lkw/2024 have been filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015- 16 against impugned appellate orders each dated 14/10/2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax [“CIT” for short].

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a domestic company and running its business in the nature of manufacturing and sale of refined oil. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 30/09/2013 disclosing nil income. First assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at , 656 & 657/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2013-14, 14-15 & 15-16 2 Rs.11,21,640/-. Subsequently, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/153A of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued. For the assessment year 2014-15 the assessee filed its return of income on 28/11/2014 disclosing total income of Rs.3,45,43,400/-. First assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.3,56,01,010/-. Subsequently, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/153A of the Act on 18/12/2018 on the same income. Subsequently a notice u/s 148 was issued and the assessment was completed on 26/03/2022. For the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2015 disclosing total income of Rs.6,36,15,410/-. First assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/153A of the Act on a total income of Rs.6,37,22,010/- on 30/12/2018. Subsequently a notice u/s 148 was issued and the assessment was completed on 26/03/2022. Aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals for all the three assessment years before the learned CIT(A), who has partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. Aggrieved, further, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, there was no representative from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, we have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials available on record. Learned Departmental Reprehensive relied on the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has challenged the action of learned CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance in the case of the assessee to the extent of 5% of the impugned bogus purchases and commission. Learned CIT(A) has observed that during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed various documents i.e. purchase invoices, purchase register, sale register, stock register, evidence for stock movement, bank statement to prove , 656 & 657/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2013-14, 14-15 & 15-16 3 genuineness of the purchases. The CIT(A) has also observed that the Assessing Officer has not doubted on production yield and corresponding sales. Since production and sales were not doubted by the Assessing Officer, the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee was actually in possession of goods. After taking into consideration the facts of the case, the learned CIT(A) opined that the addition to the extent of profit embedded in the amount of purchases made from the alleged parties was to be added. The learned CIT(A) scaled down the quantum of disallowance. In our opinion, the CIT(A) has dealt with the issue exhaustively after considering all the relevant materials available on record. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of CIT(A). In our opinion, CIT(A) has rightly restricted the disallowance.