BHARAT TIN WORKS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 20(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue concerning M/s. Basant Trading Co. to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to prove the genuineness of purchases and usage. For M/s. Mahavir Roadlines and M/s. Bhandari Packaging, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence of genuineness and directed deletion of additions.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned disallowances made by the Assessing Officer on expenses related to transactions with three parties: M/s. Basant Trading Co., M/s. Mahavir Roadlines, and M/s. Bhandari Packaging. The AO treated transactions with these parties as unproved as notices u/s. 133(6) were not served.
What were the issues?
Whether expenses claimed by the assessee are genuine and sufficiently substantiated, especially when notices to third parties were not served. The genuineness of purchases and their usage for business purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Mumbai
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, AM :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by learned CIT(A)-31, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2005- 06.
The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer out of expenses claimed by the assessee.
The assessee is carrying on the business of manufacturing of tin containers and also dealing in boards used for advertisements. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to certain parties, with whom the assessee had business transactions. Notices were not served in respect of three parties, viz., M/s. Basant Trading Co., M/s. Mahavir Roadlines & M/s. Bhandari Packaging. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the transactions entered with these parties as unproved transactions and accordingly disallowed the expenditure
2 M/s. Bharat Tin Works relating to the same. Learned CIT(A) also confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The first party is M/s. Basant Trading Co. and the assessee has purchased “Kota Stone” from this party. Learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee had used these Kota stones for carrying out repair works at the premises of the assessee. However, a perusal of the paper book furnished by the assessee would show that the assessee has furnished only bills relating to purchase of Kota stone. Evidences for transportation and usage of the same in the premises of the assessee were not furnished. When these points were put to learned AR, he sought an opportunity to furnish the relevant details to prove the genuineness of purchases. Learned Departmental Representative also submitted that the expenditure could be allowed, if the assessee proves the genuineness of purchase material and use of the same for repair works.
Having heard the parties on this issue, we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from M/s Basant Trading Company and use of the same for carrying out repair works. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The next issue relates to payment made to M/s. Mahavir Roadlines. Learned AR invited our attention to the documents furnished by the assessee before the tax authorities, which are placed in the paper book. A perusal of the same shows that the assessee had deducted tax at source from the payment made to M/s. Mahavir Roadlines and also furnished bills issued by that party for transportation, bills for purchase of material and Goods consignment note. We also notice that the proprietor of M/s. Mahavir Roadlines has filed an affidavit confirming the transactions entered with the assessee. We also notice that all the payments have been made through
3 M/s. Bharat Tin Works banking channels. Thus, we notice that the assessee has furnished all the relevant details and discharged its onus to prove genuineness of the expenditure. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the addition made in respect of payment made to M/s. Mahavir Roadlines. Accordingly, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) passed on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
In respect of purchases from M/s. Bhandari Packaging, we notice that the assessee has purchased certain raw materials and the assessee has furnished copies of bills, goods consignment note and evidence for payment of octroi. We further notice that the payment has been made by the assessee through banking channels. Perusal of the bills issued by M/s. Bhandari Packaging would also show that the assessee has furnished Form No.C required under Sales Tax Act. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the purchases made from M/s. Bhandari Packaging. Accordingly, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
More judgments on Section 133(6)
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Ritu Rajesh Gohil, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar, GujaratITA 109/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026