Jai Steel (India) v. ACIT

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

…0/-, issued a show-cause for enhancement. The appellant also filed an explanation as to how the claim of the assessee was allowable. The ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) vs. ACIT, 259 CTR 281 and the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shankar R. Jhunjhunwala, ITA No.225/PUN/2011 dated 31.07.2012 held that the proceedings u/s 153A are not meant for the benefit of the appellant and no fresh claim can be allowed in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed…