SUSHEEL ENGINEERING CORP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's claim of double addition and verify the genuineness of purchases. If the claim is found genuine, the same amount cannot be added in two different assessment years.
What were the facts?
The assessee is aggrieved by an addition of Rs. 10,16,640/- made under Section 69C for alleged purchases from suspicious dealers. The assessee claimed that the same amount was added in two different assessment years.
What were the issues?
Whether the same amount of expenditure can be added in two different assessment years as a double addition. The genuineness of purchases from suspicious dealers.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘E’ MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh(Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10/10/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, in confirming the addition of Rs.10,16,640/- made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), without appreciating the facts.
During hearing, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, claimed that the double addition has been made of the same amounts in different Assessment Years. Our attention was invited to page-9 (ledger account of Mayur Enterprises) and page- 10, (the ledger account of Hari Om Traders) of the paper book, by claiming that the same amount has been added.
On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri V. Justin, contended that this claim of the assessee needs to be examined by the Ld. Assessing Officer.
2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a small scale light engineering manufacturing unit, manufacturing isolated conductor system, which are required by mobile machineries in material handling industry declared total income of Rs.1,24,87,355/- in its return filed on 09/10/2010. The assessee filed the details, which were examined by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee was asked to verify the genuineness of purchases made from Hari Om Traders (Rs.5,05,212/-) and M/s Mayur Enterprises (Rs.5,11,428/-) total Rs.10,16,640/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that both these two parties are listed in the list of suspicious dealers on the list of Sales Tax Department, who issues bogus bills without actual delivery of goods The assessee was asked to produce the evidence of purchase made from these parties. The assessee submitted the copy of bills and it was found that the TIN Number appearing on the bills of the above two parties are the same which are available on the list of suspicious dealers of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The assessee vide letter dated 25/01/2013, claimed that the assessee is unable to get confirmation from these two parties and further claimed that the payments were routed through banking channels. The Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition.
On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), confirmed the same.
Before us, the claim of the assessee is that the same amount has been added in two different Assessment Years. Considering the totality of facts, we direct the assessee to produce both the parties before the Ld. Assessing Officer along with necessary evidence of purchases made from these parties. The Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee and decide in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity to substantiate its claim. The ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee and if the claim of the assessee is found to be genuine then the same amount cannot be added in two different Assessment Years as it will amount to double addition.
However, the Ld. Assessing Officer is to satisfy himself with respect to genuineness of the claim made by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of Ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of hearing on 14/05/2018.
More judgments on Section 69C
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mritunjay Singh, Kudra vs AO, SasaramITA 454/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Shantilal Mafaji Kachchhava, Banaskantha vs ITO WD 1 Palanpur, PalanpurITA 2256/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Madhusudhan Gade, Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, NizamabadITA 379/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026