M/S. GORUR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, RAIGAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1601/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat the disallowance of bogus purchases as eligible for Section 80IA deduction, following CBDT Circular No. 37/2016. This was based on the assessee being held entitled to Section 80IA(4) deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 concerned an addition of Rs. 374,228/- made by the ITO on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee had initially challenged this addition, claiming it failed to consider corroborative evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of bogus purchases is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, considering the assessee's entitlement to such deduction on enhanced profits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 80IA(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Hearing: 21.04.2022Pronounced: 12.05.2022

आदेश / ORDER

PER S. S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 is directed against the CIT(A) - 2, Thane’s order dated 17/03/2017 passed in case No. 248/14-15/403/15- 16 involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

M/s. Gorur Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

2.

The assessee has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal ground No.1 to 3.

“1) The learned CIT(A) 2 erred in confirming addition of Rs.374228/- made by I.T.O on the ground that the purchases „made from M/s Mahalaxmi Enterprises were bogus purchases which was based on information received from Sales Tax Dept of Maharashtra Govt.

2) He failed to consider all relevant and corroborative evidence submitted before the A.O. ward (3) Panvel, to prove genuinety of purchases.

3) It is respectfully submitted that the observations of CIT(A)2 Panvel in paragraph 6.2 of his order that the grounds of appeal regarding alleged bogus purchases was not pressed and relevant details were not produced in contrary to facts.”

3. The assessee is fair enough at the outset that it is not pressing the forgoing substantive issue of bogus purchases in light of CBDT Circular No. 37 dated 02.11.2016 dealing with chapter VI-A deduction on enhanced profits by virtue of disallowance(s) made u/s. 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B etc. of the Act. Mr. Walimbe at this stage invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s discussion in para 6 to 6.2 that the assessee had expressed its inablilty to produce the relevant details of the purchases and therefore, it is estopped from raising the instant issue. We find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments as the assessee has already been held entitled for section 80IA(4) deduction in para 5.2 of the CIT(A)’s order. We, thus direct the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee’s bogus purchases disallowances as well eligible for section 80IA

M/s. Gorur Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. deduction as per CBDT circular No.37 dated 02.11.2016. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 12th day of May, 2022.

More judgments on Section 80IA(4)

All 475 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →