CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa

Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd., 2(2), Pune. Plot No.A-50, H- Block, Midc, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aagcs4976E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing 09.03.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 23.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. [A] 12 Has Erred By Wrongly Enhance The Amount Of Rs.2,95,00,000/- By Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 43B In Revised Return Of Income Filed U/S 153A Of The I T Act. The Aforesaid Addition Being Arbitrary, Perverse, Based On Surmises & Conjecture

…. 12. As a corollary, it follow that no fresh claim unrelated to the undisclosed income can be made in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. Even the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa, 386 ITR 483 has laid down that the provisions of section 153A cannot be tool to have a second inning of assessment either to the revenue or the assessee. Even the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) in Jai Steel (India) (supra) held it to the same effect. Similar findings have been given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this…