M/S MOOL RAJ VIJAY KUMAR, KAUSHAMBI vs. DY./ACIT(CC), ALLAHABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). Regarding the stock shortage, the Tribunal noted that the partner had confirmed the inventory valuation at cost price during the survey, and later clarified an under-valuation. The AO added Rs. 59,503/- as GP on the unrecorded stock shortage. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the CIT(A)'s detailed order. Concerning the salary expenses, the Tribunal observed that the debit in the P&L account was Rs. 8,69,800/-, while the stated yearly salary was Rs. 3,84,000/-, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 4,85,800/-. The Tribunal confirmed this addition. For the unsecured loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- from Smt. Malti Kapoor, the Tribunal, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments such as Precision Finance (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iran & Steel (P) Ltd., held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction as required under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- was confirmed. The Tribunal found no material to persuade it to take a different view from the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s Mool Raj Vijay Kumar, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,51,629/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) processed the return and passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the total income at Rs. 18,96,933/- after making various additions. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who dismissed the appeal vide an order dated 10/03/2023. The assessee then filed the present appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). At the hearing, the assessee was unrepresented, and the Tribunal heard the Departmental Representative (DR).
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified. The specific issues, as reflected in the CIT(A)'s order and the AO's actions, pertain to: 1. **Addition on account of stock shortage:** Whether the addition of Rs. 59,503/- representing the Gross Profit (GP) at 2.28% on the shortage of stock not recorded in the books of accounts was justified, considering the survey conducted under Section 133A and the partner's statement regarding under-valuation. 2. **Addition on account of salary expenses:** Whether the disallowance of Rs. 4,85,800/- on account of the difference between the salary debited in the Profit & Loss Account and the actual salary paid to employees was justified. 3. **Addition on account of unsecured loan:** Whether the disallowance of Rs. 7,00,000/- out of unsecured loans taken from Smt. Malti Kapoor was justified under Section 68 of the Act, due to the assessee's failure to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The assessee's contentions are not recorded as they were unrepresented. The revenue, through the DR, relied on the assessment order, the CIT(A)'s order, and various case laws, including Pr.CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. and CIT vs. P. Mohankala, to support the additions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(12)Show listHide 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.
- (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.696 citing412 ITR 161 · 2019 · SC
- CIT v. P. Mohanakala525 citing291 ITR 278 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd.216 citing367 ITR 306 · 2014 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Maithan International119 citing375 ITR 123 · 2015 · HC
- Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd. v. CIT 2016-TIOL- 207-SC-IT65 citing230 Taxmann 268 · 2015 · SC
- Pavankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO49 citing404 ITR 601 · 2018 · HC
- Pavankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO11 citing258 Taxmann 160 · 2018 · SC
- 224 Taxman 178 (Punjab & Haryana) 2. CIT v. N. Tarika Properties Investment (P) Ltd.9 citing221 Taxmann 14 · 2014 · HC
- CIT v. M.B. Patel6 citing221 Taxmann 143 · 2014 · HC
- 204 Taxman 135 (Allahabad) Sagittraious Builders &Colonisers v. CIT (k)3 citing102 Taxmann.com 392 · 2019 · HC
- 227 Taxman 373 (SC) N. Tarika Property Invest (P.) Ltd. v. CIT3 citing277 Taxmann 594 · 2021 · SC
- CTR 472 (Delhi). 3 N Tarika Properties Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT3 citing227 Taxmann 373 · 2014 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA
2018-19 against impugned appellate order dated 10/03/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2022- 23/1050583147(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,51,629/-. The Assessing Officer processed the return filed by the assessee and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 08/06/2021 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,96,933/- by making various additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 10/03/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A). Being aggrieved further, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A).
At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard learned D.R. and perused the materials available on record. The learned D.R. placed reliance on the assessment order and the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). He placed further reliance on the written submissions in which prayer has been made to confirm the additions of Rs.59,503/-, Rs.4,85,800/- and Rs.7,00,000/- In the aforesaid written submissions, reliance was placed by learned D.R. on the following case laws:
(a) [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC) Pr.CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (assessment year 2009-10) (b) [2015] 230 taxman 268 (SC), Navodaya Castle (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT Dismissing SLP against [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Delhi) (c) [2014] 227 Taxman 373 (SC) N. Tarika Property Invest (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT dismissing SLP against [2014] 221 Taxman 14 (Delhi) (d) [2021] 277 Taxman 594 (SC), Sadiq Sheikh vs. CIT Dismissing assessee’s SLP against [2020] 122 taxmann.com 39 (Bom.) (e) [2018] 258 Taxman 160 (SC), Pavankumar M. Sanghvi vs. Income Tax Officer, Dismissing SLP against [2018] 404 ITR 601 (Gujarat) (f) [2014] 221 Taxman 143 (Andhra Pradesh) (Mag.) Gayathri Associates vs. Income Tax Officer (g) Smt Puja Grover vs. ACIT (I.T.A. No.140/A/2024) order dated 20/03/2025 (h) [2015] 375 ITR 123 (Calcutta), CIT vs. Maithan International (i) [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohankala (j) [2012] 204 Taxman 135 (Allahabad) Sagittraious Builders &Colonisers v. CIT (k) [2019] 102 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi) Alfa Bhoj Ltd. vs. DCIT
We have heard learned Department Representative and perused the materials available on record. It is found that the learned CIT(A) has passed a detailed order after giving due consideration to the facts of the case, applicable law and decided precedents. The relevant portion of the order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
4.1 Nothing has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the learned CIT(A) in the aforesaid order. In view of the foregoing, the aforesaid additions of Rs.59,503/-, Rs.4,85,800/- and Rs.7,00,000/- are confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 25/08/2025)
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs ITO, Ward-2(1), PatnaPatna9 Aug 2019Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Maithan International and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions related to share capital and application money. The identical confirmations from different compa...
- Heritage Hospitals Ltd, New Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-11(1), New DelhiDelhi30 Oct 2024Dismissed
Also relies on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the subscribers. The AO's detailed inquiries, including field investigations, ...
- Poddar Finin Cosultancy Pvt.Ltd, Raigad vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, PanvelPune23 Sept 2022Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Maithan International and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 12.10 crores as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors, even after remand proceedings.
- DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, MumbaiMumbai23 Dec 2021Remanded
Also relies on Pavankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal found the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s approach to be superficial, as mere banking channel transactions and confirmations do not establish genuineness. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A...
- Arm Infra & Utilities Private Limited… vs Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6…Mumbai12 Nov 2021Allowed
Also relies on Pavankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and verification, and the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) were n...
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026