SHIVA APPARELS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to rebut the findings of the CIT(Appeals) regarding additions on account of stock difference, estimation of net profits, and disallowance of administrative expenditure. The grounds related to these additions were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a garment business, filed its return of income. A survey was conducted, and the Assessing Officer made additions to the returned income, including on account of stock difference and estimated net profit. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) on account of stock difference, estimated net profits, and administrative expenditure were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JASON P. BOAZ & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-34, Mumbai dated 12/6/2012 for assessment year 2006- 07.
The facts of the case, briefly, are as under:-
2.1 The assessee, a firm engaged in the business of manufacture and trading in readymade garments/cloth, filed its return of income for (Assessment Year 2006-07) assessment year 2006-07 on 30/10/2006 declaring income of Rs.34,92,030/-. A survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short ‘the Act’) was conducted in the assessee’s business premises on 10/11/2005. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23/12/2008, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.54,04,640/- as against the returned income of Rs.34,92,030/-, in view of an addition of inter-alia Rs.19,12,604/- thereto on account of difference in net profit. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals)-34, Mumbai dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 12/06/2012.
Aggreived by the order of the CIT(Appeal)-34, Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07 dated 12/6/2012 the assessee has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds:-
“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O on Account of Stock of Rs.33,58,997/-.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made on estimate basis in survey proceeding assessment passed u/s.143(3).
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that Bad Debts claimed by appellant in assessment proceedings has not been allowed by A.O.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition passing the order after the lapse of more than two years of submission.
The Appellant reserves the right to add, to delete and/or amend any of the foregoing ground of appeal
.”
4. This case was fixed for hearing on various dates. On four occasions, the case was adjourned on the request of the Ld. Representative for the assessee and on other dates none was present on behalf of the assessee. Today i.e. 05/01/2016, when the case was called for hearing, one was present on behalf of the assessee. The (Assessment Year 2006-07) Ld.D.R, however, was present for Revenue. In these circumstances it appears to us that the assessee is not interested in pursuing this appeal and, we therefore, proceed to dispose off this case with the assistance of the Ld. D.R and the material on record.
5. After considering the submissions made by the Ld. D.R in support of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the findings rendered therein and the material on record, we find that the assessee has been unable to rebut or controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the additions; (i) on account of difference in stock - Rs. 33,58,997/-; (ii) on account of estimation of net profits @ 1.4% on total sales and (iii) on account of disallowance of administrative expenditure Consequently, the grounds at Sl.Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are dismissed. The Grounds at Sl.Nos 4 & 5 being general in nature and not being argued before us are dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08/01/2016
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 →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- 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