CHANDRAKANT RAGHUNATHRAO GOJE,NANDED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NANDED

PDF · subscribers
ITA 603/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 December 2021AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was reopened for a specific reason (bogus purchases) and no addition was made on that ground, no other addition could be made. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was considered invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return for AY 2009-10 was processed without scrutiny. Later, the assessment was reopened based on information about bogus purchases. However, no addition was made for bogus purchases, but an ad-hoc disallowance on other expenses was made.

What were the issues?

Whether additions can be made on grounds other than those for which assessment was reopened. Validity of assessment reopening when no addition is made on the original reason.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke
Hearing: 07.12.2021Pronounced: 08.12.2021

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 08.01.2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is an individual and dealer in machinery goods. The return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 07.10.2009 declaring total income of Rs.3,45,270/- and there was no scrutiny assessment against the said return of income. Subsequently, based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee is involved in the bogus purchases, a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act,

2 1961 (‘the Act’) was issued on 06.03.2014. In response to the said notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the same return of income as the original return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the assessment was completed vide order dated 25.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without making any addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases. However, Assessing Officer made addition of ad-hoc disallowance on several expenses of Rs.3,45,267/-. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the same was confirmed.

3.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

4.

Before us, during the course of hearing of appeal, an additional ground of appeal was raised by the assessee, which reads as under :- “6. Appellant contends that the learned CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad; erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the learned ITO, Ward-1, Nanded; u/s 147 of the ITA, 1961; though no addition was made on the reason for which notice u/s 148 of the ITA, 1961 was issued. Appellant contends that the order passed by the learned I-T Authorities is bad in law considering the ratio laid down by the Honorable Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. – 331 ITR 236.”

5.

It is submitted that the additional ground of appeal goes to very root of the matter and it is purely legal issue does not involve any investigation of facts and, therefore, the additional ground of appeal should be admitted for adjudication.

6.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection for admission of the additional ground of appeal.

7.

Since the additional ground of appeal goes to very root of the matter, we shall deal with the additional ground of appeal. Vide this additional ground

3 of appeal, the appellant submits that the assessment was reopened for the purpose of making addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. However, no addition in respect of bogus purchases was made by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer made an ad-hoc disallowance of several expenses. "याियक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 08th December, 2021. Sujeet

4 आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad.

4.

The Pr. CIT-1, Aurangabad. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब"च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →