ELLORA ISPAT,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(4), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not granted. Since the documentary evidence regarding purchases and their trail was not considered by the lower authorities, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an ex parte order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer treated purchases from Rashmi Enterprises as bogus, and the CIT(A) upheld this addition. The assessee claimed to have provided evidence of consumption and trail of goods.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing and if the evidence regarding purchases was properly considered by the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-8, Pune, dated 27.07.2017 relating to assessment year 2009-10 against order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee also filed captioned Stay Application.
The appeal filed by the assessee and Stay Application were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. The Raw Material purchased from Rashmi Enterprises amounting to Rs.31,45,803/- has been consumed for production of M.S. Profile. 2. The alleged Allegation by learned A.O. and F.A. are wrong as they have treated the Appellant as Trader. 3. The Appellant crave leave to produce additional documents before Honourable ITAT. 4. The Appellant request to delete the additions made by A.O. and confirmed by F.A. 5. The Appellant has neither concealed nor shown wrong purchases, hence penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) to be deleted.
The assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in not considering evidence available with the assessee and passing the order. The issue raised in the present appeal is against alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee.
The perusal of assessment order reveals that the same was passed ex parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The assessee claims to have
ITA No.326/PUN/2018 3 SA No.37/PUN/2018 Ellora Ispat
filed evidence before the CIT(A) to establish the trail of goods, which he failed to consider and upheld the order of Assessing Officer in assessing 100% value of purchases as additional income of assessee.
We find merit in the plea of assessee that reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been granted to assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue in the present appeal stands covered. Since documentary evidences available with the assessee in respect of goods purchased and its trail has not been considered by the authorities below, we deem it fit to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to file evidences before the Assessing Officer to establish its claim. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law.
The matter is being set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, hence the issue on merits is not being decided. However, the Stay Application moved by the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 12th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 12th April, 2018. GCVSR
ITA No.326/PUN/2018 4 SA No.37/PUN/2018 Ellora Ispat
आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-8, Pune; 3. 4. The Pr.CIT-3, Pune; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “ए” / DR 5. ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026