CIT v. U.K. Shah

ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan vs. Jayesh Velji Karia, Dombivali

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Shri Jayesh Velji Karia, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Rakhmabai Jadhav Niwas, Kalyan-Murbad Road, Nr. S.B.I., Dhorte Compound, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E), 421201 Pan: Ablpk8953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Jayesh Velji Karia, The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Jainam Traders), Ward-3(5), C-38, Munshi Estate, Kalyan 1St Floor, M.G. Road, Vs. Above Mahavir Jain Dudhalay, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080 Pan: Ablpk8953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Shri Jitesh Velji Karia, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Suresh Anna Dhorte Bldg., Kalyan-Murbad Road, Nr. S.B.I., New Bharat Chs, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E) – 421201 Pan: Agopk7897F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Jitesh Velji Karia, The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Karia Traders), Ward-3(5), 01, Suresh Anna Dhorte Bldg., Kalyan New Bharat Chs, Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E) – 421201 Pan: Agopk7897F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.V. Rajguru (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017

…ial year. Hence, the action of AO in making addition of entire amount to the income is not in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and CIT Vs. U M Shah 90 ITR 396 (Bomb.) Since, the action of AO is not justifiable, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly modified the assessment order by restricting the addition. While upholding the decision of Mumbai Tribunal the Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that merely because the suppliers had not…

Shriprakash V. Sardesai, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cxir 47, Mumbai

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 484/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

…ssing Officer has issued notice does not appear before the Assessing Officer. In this regard, reliance was placed on Honourable Bombay High Court Ruling in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City - 11 Vs. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. 90 ITR 396 (Bom) wherein it was held that the assessee could not be blamed if the parties do not appear in response to the summons. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition made to the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the parties merely filed confirmations and failed to 9 I.T.A. No. 484/…

DCIT 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Simplex Castings Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11)

…es not shift to the assessee because it was for the Assessing Officer to ensure the attendance of parties. In this context, the learned representative for the assessee referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. U.M. Shah, 90 ITR 396 (Bom) where it has been observed that if the ITO issues summons and the witness does not appear, assessee could not be blamed for it. The learned 10 ITA NO. 1562& 2472/MUM/2015(A.Y.2010-11) representative asserted that so far as the purchases by the assessee is concerned, there was no falsity proved and, therefore, the version of assessee has be…

Simplex Casting Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(OSD)-3(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11)

…es not shift to the assessee because it was for the Assessing Officer to ensure the attendance of parties. In this context, the learned representative for the assessee referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. U.M. Shah, 90 ITR 396 (Bom) where it has been observed that if the ITO issues summons and the witness does not appear, assessee could not be blamed for it. The learned 10 ITA NO. 1562& 2472/MUM/2015(A.Y.2010-11) representative asserted that so far as the purchases by the assessee is concerned, there was no falsity proved and, therefore, the version of assessee has be…

Reshma Emterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,D,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, ITO WD 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. AAAFR7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 ITO WD 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue)…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,D,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, ITO WD 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. AAAFR7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 ITO WD 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue)…

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,D,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, ITO WD 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. AAAFR7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 ITO WD 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue)…

Jalaram Enterprises Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4289/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Jalaram Enterprises The Dcit, बनाम/ Co. Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. 7,Pathai Niwas, N.S. Road, Old Cgo Bldg., Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 080 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 5060/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dcit, M/S. Jalaram Enterprises Co. बनाम/ Central Circle-2, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Old Cgo Bldg., 7,Pathai Niwas, N.S. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080

…e has partly repaid. The Ld. Counsel submits that the non appearance of the parties cannot be a ground for making addition u/s. 68 in the hands of the assessee. Placing reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs U.M. Shah (90 ITR 396), the Ld. Counsel submits that in this case the Hon’ble High Court held that creditors having received the summons did not present themselves before the Assessing Officer but had sent confirmatory letters. Thus it was held that the assessee could not be blamed. It was further submitted that where lenders are assessed to tax, the assessee can be sa…