ITO v. Sunsteel

31 DTR 456Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#7749 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also reported as

92 TTJ 126

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 69CSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 10(38)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 108section 147(b)section 147(a)section 34(1)within four yearsfresh tangible materialsanctioning authorityapproval under section 151first proviso to section 147section 151(1)section 151(2)paper company

Judgments citing ITO v. Sunsteel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. S S PULSES MANUFACTURING PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2384/DEL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…efit under the law. Similarly, the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal held in the case of Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (49 ITD 177) that issue of bills by the alleged suppliers was not a conclusive proof. On the same facts, in the case of ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 126), the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal upheld 10% of the purchase price as Page 5 of 16 DCIT Vs. S.S. Pulses [A.Y 2012-13] inflated amount where suppliers were found to be nonexistent and did not respond to the notices issued by the Department. There are number of decisions by the various courts, wherein 25% to 100% disallowances of bogus purchases, h…

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

…m); (vii) J.R Solvent Inidustries, 24 DTR 387 (Chandigarh); (viii) Chandresh Kumar Maheshwari, 29 SOT 58 (Jodhpur Bench); (ix) Smt. Bibi Rani Bansal, 43 DTR 279 (TM); (x) H.B. Stock Holdings Ltd., 325 ITR 316 (Del); (xi) Nisraj Real Estate & Export (P.) Ltd., 31 DTR 456 (Jaipur); (xii) Pravin Electronics Ltd., 16 DTR 321 (Del); (xiii) Mukesh R. Maroliya, 6 SOT 247 (Mumbai Tribunal); (xiv) Ritaben Panwala and Mitaben Panwala, ITA No.4082 and 4083/Ahd/2008; (xv) Smita P. Patil, 96 DTR 313 (Pune Tribunal). The CIT(A) has mainly relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejua ITA Nos.778 & 779…

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 778/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

…m); (vii) J.R Solvent Inidustries, 24 DTR 387 (Chandigarh); (viii) Chandresh Kumar Maheshwari, 29 SOT 58 (Jodhpur Bench); (ix) Smt. Bibi Rani Bansal, 43 DTR 279 (TM); (x) H.B. Stock Holdings Ltd., 325 ITR 316 (Del); (xi) Nisraj Real Estate & Export (P.) Ltd., 31 DTR 456 (Jaipur); (xii) Pravin Electronics Ltd., 16 DTR 321 (Del); (xiii) Mukesh R. Maroliya, 6 SOT 247 (Mumbai Tribunal); (xiv) Ritaben Panwala and Mitaben Panwala, ITA No.4082 and 4083/Ahd/2008; (xv) Smita P. Patil, 96 DTR 313 (Pune Tribunal). The CIT(A) has mainly relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejua ITA Nos.778 & 779…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

ITA 155/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…no Private Limited Similarly, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held in the case of Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (49 ITD 177) that issue of bills by the alleged suppliers was not a conclusive proof. On the same facts, in the case of ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 126), the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal upheld 10% of the purchase price as inflated amount where suppliers were found to be non-existent and did not respond to the notices issued by the Department. There are number of decisions by the various courts, wherein 25% to 100% disallowances of bogus purchases, have been upheld. Some of these are mentioned belo…

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THANA RAM MANGI LAL CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2698/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-19(3)(1), Mumbai Thana Ram Mangi Lal Choudhary Vs 33/36, Prabhu Shree Ram Mandir, 4Th Kumbharwada, Maharashtra-400004. Pan: Afepc 1898 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule Addl. CIT/ Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…fit under the law. Similarly, the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal held in the case of Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (49 ITD 177) that issue of bills by the alleged suppliers was not a conclusive proof. On the same facts, in the case of ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 126), the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal upheld 10% of the purchase price as inflated amount where suppliers were found to be nonexistent and did not respond to the notices issued by the Department. There are number of decisions by the various courts, wherein 25% to 100% disallowances of bogus purchases, have been upheld. Some of these are mentioned below…

HARISONS STEEL LIMITED,WADA THANE vs. DY CIT 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 3957/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nefit under the law. Similarly, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held in the case of Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (49 ITD 177) that issue of bills by the alleged suppliers was not a conclusive proof On the same facts, in the case of ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 126), the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal upheld 10% of the purchase price as inflated amount where suppliers were found to be non-existent and did not respond to the notices issued by the Department Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Uniword Telecom Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (45 DTR 433) upheld the addition on account of unverifiable purchases…

HARISONS STEEL LTD,WADA THANE vs. DCIT 12(2)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 3943/MUM/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nefit under the law. Similarly, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held in the case of Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (49 ITD 177) that issue of bills by the alleged suppliers was not a conclusive proof On the same facts, in the case of ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 126), the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal upheld 10% of the purchase price as inflated amount where suppliers were found to be non-existent and did not respond to the notices issued by the Department Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Uniword Telecom Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (45 DTR 433) upheld the addition on account of unverifiable purchases…

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…with documentary evidence, to prove the alleged bogus purchases and/or of the non-genuine business transactions. In absence of the contrary credible documentary evidence, accordingly the proposed addition would be seriously is unjustified. (92 TTJ 726 (Ahd), 31 DTR 456 (Jp), 141 TTJ 305 (Del), 10 DTR 281 (Jp); In CIT v. Sunita Dhaddha SLP(Civil) No.9432/2018 dt. 28/03/2018 (SC) “The honourable Supreme Court held that if the AO wants to rely upon ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. documents found with the third parties, the presumption u/s 292C against the assessee is not available. As per…

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…with documentary evidence, to prove the alleged bogus purchases and/or of the non-genuine business transactions. In absence of the contrary credible documentary evidence, accordingly the proposed addition would be seriously is unjustified. (92 TTJ 726 (Ahd), 31 DTR 456 (Jp), 141 TTJ 305 (Del), 10 DTR 281 (Jp); In CIT v. Sunita Dhaddha SLP(Civil) No.9432/2018 dt. 28/03/2018 (SC) “The honourable Supreme Court held that if the AO wants to rely upon ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. documents found with the third parties, the presumption u/s 292C against the assessee is not available. As per…

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…with documentary evidence, to prove the alleged bogus purchases and/or of the non-genuine business transactions. In absence of the contrary credible documentary evidence, accordingly the proposed addition would be seriously is unjustified. (92 TTJ 726 (Ahd), 31 DTR 456 (Jp), 141 TTJ 305 (Del), 10 DTR 281 (Jp); In CIT v. Sunita Dhaddha SLP(Civil) No.9432/2018 dt. 28/03/2018 (SC) “The honourable Supreme Court held that if the AO wants to rely upon ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. documents found with the third parties, the presumption u/s 292C against the assessee is not available. As per…

AVINASH NARAYAN SUTAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 28(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…mitted by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Ld. AO has not doubted the sales made by the assessee and with a logical view the sales can be made only when there is a corresponding purchase. For this, we rely on the Jaipur Bench of ITAT ruling in 31 DTR 456- Nisraj Real Estate held that unverified purchases made by assessee could not be treated as unexplained expense u/s 69C and no addition can be made thereof us 69C proviso there under -as once sales were made by assessee, purchases were obviously made. Appellant in his submission vide letter dated 03.03.2014 has clarified that it was a mistake to s…

M/S G. D. ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 585/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S G.D. Enterprise V/S. Acit, Circle-40 1/H/1, Raja Janmenjoy 3, Government Place Road, Kolkata-700010 (West), Kolkat- [Pan No.Aacfg 4533 A] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sourav Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.12.2015, Passed In Case No.1046/Cit(A)-13/Kol/Cir-45/2014-15, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Purchases Amounting To ₹3,39,04,027/- As Bogus In Assessment As Affirmed In Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “5. Decision 5.1 Appellant'S Submission & Facts Available On Record Is Carefully Considered. The Assessee Has Argued That It Had Made All Payments Through Account Payee Cheque & From Your Petitioner Site There Is No Mistake As Per Law & Income Tax Act. So The Disallowance Of Purchase Against Payment Through Account Payee Cheque Would Not Be False & It May Be Accepted

Section 143(3)

…bility of unexplained payment would not arise. In any case, Ld. A.O did not bring any evidence on record to justify any sort of unexplained payments made to the alleged unidentified parties, accordingly the addition u/s.69C is unjustified, (92 TTJ 1126 (Ahd), 31 DTR 456 (Jp), 147 TTJ 308 (Del), 10 DTR 281 (Jp); 1.3 The Ld. A.O had not rejected the appellant's books of accounts u/s.145(3) of the Act and having accepted the book results is not justified in invoking the provision of Sec 69C of the Act on incorrectly assuming that the appellant had incurred unexplained expenditure to source the purchase made from unk…

SHRI GOVERDHAN SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2172/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 2172/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Goverdhan Sharma.............................………………………………………………..Appellant 9, Peary Mohan Lane, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Atbps 8082 J] Income Tax Officer...................………………………………………………..................Respondent Ward No. 45(2), Kolkata, 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata – 700 001 Appearances By: Shri Ashok Barnwal, Ca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Das, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 22.06.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 4,04,667/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Purchases. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Sarees. In The Assessment Originally Completed In His Case Under Section 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 18.12.2009, Disallowance Inter Alia Was Made By The A.O. On Account Of Job Work Charges Amounting To Rs. 2,71,673/-. The Records Of The Said Assessment Came To Be Examined By The Ld. Cit(A) & On Such Examination, He Found That There Were Following Two Errors In The Order Dated 18.12.2009 Passed By The A.O.:

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 69C

…any claim. The auditor does not scrutinize the details submitted by the partners or proprietors. The genuinely of the expenses is never judged. The appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench decision. The Jaipur Bench of ITAT ruling in 31 DTR 456 in case of M/s. Nisraj Real Estate it is held that unverified purchases made by the assessee could not be treated as unexplained expense u/s 69C and no addition can be made thereof u/s 69C proviso there under as once sales were made by assessee, purchases were obviously made. In this case perusal of submissions made during the appellate proceeding…

ITO 16(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHWIN PURSHOTTAM BAJAJ, MUMBAI

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 5207/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ashwin Purshotam The Ito – Ward 16(2)(1), बनाम/ Bajaj, Mumbai. V. C/O Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5, Jolly Bhawan No. 2, 7 New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpb7522J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…bility of unexplained payment would not arise. In any case, Ld. A.O did not bring any evidence on record to justify any sort of unexplained payments made to the alleged unidentified parties, accordingly the addition u/s.69C is unjustified, (92 TTJ 1126 (Ahd), 31 DTR 456 (Jp), 147 TTJ 308 (Del), 10 DTR 281 (Jp); 1.3 The Ld. A.O had not rejected the appellant's books of accounts u/s.145(3) of the Act and having accepted the book results is not justified in invoking the provision of Sec 69C of the Act on incorrectly assuming that the appellant had incurred unexplained expenditure to source the purchase made from un…

ASHWIN PURSHOTAM BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 4736/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ashwin Purshotam The Ito – Ward 16(2)(1), बनाम/ Bajaj, Mumbai. V. C/O Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5, Jolly Bhawan No. 2, 7 New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpb7522J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…bility of unexplained payment would not arise. In any case, Ld. A.O did not bring any evidence on record to justify any sort of unexplained payments made to the alleged unidentified parties, accordingly the addition u/s.69C is unjustified, (92 TTJ 1126 (Ahd), 31 DTR 456 (Jp), 147 TTJ 308 (Del), 10 DTR 281 (Jp); 1.3 The Ld. A.O had not rejected the appellant's books of accounts u/s.145(3) of the Act and having accepted the book results is not justified in invoking the provision of Sec 69C of the Act on incorrectly assuming that the appellant had incurred unexplained expenditure to source the purchase made from un…