THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SPECO INFRASTRUCTURE , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2324/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 January 2024AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that similar issues concerning bogus purchases, unsecured loans, and interest expenses on unsecured loans had been decided in favor of the assessee by co-ordinate benches in earlier years and in cases of related entities. The Departmental Representative could not point out any dissimilarity in facts or circumstances.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which partly allowed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. The assessee, a partnership firm, had its income assessed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment order included additions for bogus purchases, unsecured loans, and bogus interest expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchases, unsecured loans, and interest expenses were justified, especially in light of previous decisions by co-ordinate benches in similar cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 68,Section 37(1),Section 132,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia, SR. AR
Pronounced: 22.01.2024
1.

This appeal in for A.Y. 2013-14, is filed by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the appellate order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [the learned CIT (A)] dated 26th April, 2023, wherein e-appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 28th March, 2023, was partly allowed and the learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved on following three grounds:-

2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans ignoring the facts that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of most of the creditors, and credit-worthiness of the parties to the satisfaction of the AO, so as to discharge the primary onus?"

3.

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 32,13,591/- u/s 37(1) of the Act in respect of interest expenses on unsecured loans ignoring the facts that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of most of the creditors, and credit- worthiness of the parties to the satisfaction of the AO, so as to discharge the primary onus?"

4.

"The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of the ground of appeal if need be.”

2.

The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a partnership firm filed return of income on 30th September, 2013, declaring total income of ₹76,24,110/-, which was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 21st March,

7.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer.

8.

During the course of hearing, the assessee was asked to submit the remand report filed by the learned Assessing Officer for all these assessment years, wherein it is stated that the learned Assessing Officer has accepted the same in appellate proceedings. The assessee submitted the remand report filed by the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2019-20, which was submitted

9.

On question to the learned Departmental Representative, that is there any difference between the facts and circumstances of the case including the parties in all these orders and the co-ordinate bench are similar or not, the learned CIT Departmental Representative did not point out any dissimilarity.

11.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We first come to the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2018-19, wherein in and other appeals the orders were passed under Section 153A of the Act and the co-ordinate Bench has deleted the addition and quashed the assessment order. However, it was also mentioned that on merits of the case, the learned CIT (A) has relied on the remand report of the learned Assessing Officer and granted the relief. The co-ordinate bench has categorically held in paragraph no. 14 that the order of the learned CIT (A) deleting the addition is a reasoned and a conclusive order and bench agreed with the same. Coming to the order of the co-ordinate Bench in ITA no.2781/Mum/2022 for A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the assessment order were passed under Section 143 read with section 147 of the Act. The co-ordinate Bench in paragraph no.6 and 7 after considering the remand report upheld the order of the learned CIT (A) with respect to bogus purchase and addition under Section 68 of the Act. Similarly, in case of the sisters concern in ITA No.2780/Mum/2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 in case of Preeti Construction dated 3rd may, 2023, the assessment order was passed under Section

12.

In the result, Appeal of the LD AO is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.01.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →