Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT

ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Actube Enterprises, Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

…given by the AO to the assessee for rebuttal. The assessee placed reliance on following case laws to support its contentions: a) CIT v. Nikhunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited ITA No. 5604 of 2010(Bom.HC),dated 17.12.2012 b) Rajesh P. Sonivs v. ACIT, (2006) 100 TTJ 892(Ahd.) c) CIT v. M.K. Brothers (1987) 163 ITR 249(Guj.) 6 | P a g e I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 d) CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (2013) 40 taxmann.com 494(Guj.) 5.2 The assessee also submitted that these purchases are reflected in its books of accounts. It was also submitted by assessee before learned CIT(A) that the assessee has duly…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bright Power Projects (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

…t doubted by AO, then addition cannot be sustained only because of non-appearance of supplier before the AO.  M/s. Imperial Imp & Exp vs. ITO (ITA No.5427/Mum/2015)[Mum.ITAT]  ACIT vs. Mahesh K Shah (ITA No.5194/Mum/2014)[Mum ITAT]  Rajesh P Soni vs. ACIT [100 TTJ 892](2006)(Ahd. Trib) M/s. Bright Power Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,  CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd., (35 Taxmann.com 384) (Bom.)  Ramesh Kumar & Co., vs. ACIT (ITA No.2959/ Mum/2014) (Mum.ITAT)  Hiralal Chunilal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No.4547/Mum/2014) (Mum.ITAT)  DCIT vs. Rajeev G. Kalathil (67 SOT 52)(Mum.ITAT)  ITO vs. Paresh Arvind Gan…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Md. Rizwan Mohd Kallan ITO 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’s Co-operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 PAN: AGJPK2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR) Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR) Date of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. The insta…

Vaishali Prakash Muni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

…gus purchases was upheld. 9. Further, the learned AR relied on the following decision where the facts of the case were similar to the case of the assessee:  CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 35 Taxmann.com 384 (BOM HC)  Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.)(Trib.)  DCIT v. Brahmaputra Steels (P) Ltd. 122 TAXMAN 32(GAUHATI)(MAG.)  Totaram Sharma vs. ITO Ward (AhmedabadTax Appeal No. 1344 of 2008 with Tax Appeal No. 1355 of 2008.)  Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd. v. ITO [1994] 49 ITD 177 (ITAT Mumbai) 10. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions in support of the contention th…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

…se very books though with a slight modification. Whether brief capitulation of findings of facts returned by Tribunal led; to an irresistible conclusion that these were pure findings of fact giving rise to no question of law held, yes d. Rajesh P Som V/s ACIT 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd) Where purchases are properly recorded in books of account and supported by authenticated purchases bills/ vouches payments were made through banking channel, the sales against these purchases not doubted. No addition can be made merely because he suppliers cannot be located, e, CIT V/s M K Brothers (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) In relevant asses…

ITO 33(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arun Damji Gada, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Ito 33(1)(1), Vs. Shri Arun Damji Gada R.No.304, 3Rd Floor 403, God Gift, A Wing Bldg No.C-11, Adarsh Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhawan Adarsh Dugdhalya Lane Bkc, Bandra (E) Malad (E) Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aabpg3923F Appellant) Respondent) ..

…accepting the claim of the purchases by the Appellant. Mere Non appearance of the vendors in response to the notices u/s 133(6) also can not lead to doubt the authenticity and genuineness of the purchases as held in the case of Rajesh P. Soni vs. ACIT( 2006) 100 TTJ 892(Ahd. Tribunal) and CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd order dt. 22/04/2013 Tax Appeal No. 689 of 2010 Gujarat High Court. In view of the aforesaid judicial rulings on the same facts before me and decided in favour of the Assessee , this Ground of Appeal No. 4 is allowed and the Assessing officer is directed to allow the Appellants claim of purchas…

Hemant R. Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result the assessee appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi Vs. Asst. Cit 16(2) R.No.210, 2Nd Floor D-502, Kukreja Palace Vallabh Baug Lane Matru Mandir, Extension-Ghatkopar (E) Tardeo Road Mumbai – 400 075 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No.Aagps4816C Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Cit 19(1) Vs. Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 411, Arihant Building, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad Street Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aagps4816C Appellant) .. Respondent)

…tile India Private Limited v. Third ITO (49 ITD 1 77) (Mum.) • ITO v. Karsan Nandu (77 taxmann.com 275) (Mum) Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi • Geolife Organics v. ACIT (ITA No. 3699/M/16) (Mum) • ACIT v Mahesh K. Shah (5194/Mum/2014) (Mum.) • Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT (100 TTJ 892) (Ahmd.) 9. As per learned AR in terms of following decisions wherein it was held that addition on the basis of general statements/affidavits before the Sales Tax Department without implicating the assessee is not sustainable: • CIT v. M.K. Brothers (1987) (30 Taxman 547) (Guj.) • ACIT v. M/s. Parshva Enterprises (ITA. No. 5288/M/2013) (Mum.) •…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Shree Sai Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the revenue is stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

…atlal Gala, Mumbai - ITA No.5920/Mum/2013 and ITA No. 6203/Mum/2013. (A.Y. 2010-11) vi. Ramesh Kumar & Co., Mumbai Vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai- vii. Shri Ganpatraj A. Sanghavi, Mumbai Vs. ACIT 15(3), Mumbai - ITA No.2826/Mum/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) viii. Rajesh P.Soni 100 TTJ 892 (And) Para 6.32 page 45 of CIT(A)'s order). 7 ITA No.1754/Mum/2017. M/s.Shree Sai Enterprises. The A.O. had not brought on record any evidence showing that the payments made by bank cheques by the appellant to the suppliers were immediately withdrawn by the suppliers and refunded back the same to the appellant. It has also been noticed that wit…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nihar Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

…duce it before the assessee so that the assessee could cocontrovert the statements contained in it by asking for an opportunity to cross examine the manager of the bank with reference to the statements made by him: 6.7 In case of Rajesh P Soni vs ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd) it was held that- Purchases were recorded in the regular books of account maintained. The purchases are supported by proper bills n/ vouchers. The assessee filed the necessary details regarding name address sales-tax number. The payments were made through banking channel- Thus, the sale against the purchases is not doubted it is not the cas…

Nihaar Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 13(1)(1)

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

…duce it before the assessee so that the assessee could cocontrovert the statements contained in it by asking for an opportunity to cross examine the manager of the bank with reference to the statements made by him: 6.7 In case of Rajesh P Soni vs ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd) it was held that- Purchases were recorded in the regular books of account maintained. The purchases are supported by proper bills n/ vouchers. The assessee filed the necessary details regarding name address sales-tax number. The payments were made through banking channel- Thus, the sale against the purchases is not doubted it is not the cas…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

…ross- examine- 361 ITR 206 (Del) CIT Vs. Sunrise Tooling System P. Ltd. 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers 252 ITR 476 (Guj) DCIT Vs. Adinath Industries Balaji Textiles Vs. DCIT 49 ITD 177 (Mum) 107 Taxmann 126 (ITAT Ahd) ITO Vs. Ghanshyam Steel Traders 122 Taxmann 32 (ITAT Gauhati) DCIT Vs. Brahmaputra Steels P. Ltd. ITO Vs. Agarwal Steel Traders 77 Taxman 95 (Chd) The appellant submits that without prejudice to the contention of (v) the appellant that there is no admission made in the statement recorded in the course of survey proceedings, the appellant submits that in any case, the statement recorded it…

Reliable Automotive P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

…2013; vii) Balaji Textile Ind. P. Ltd. v/s ITO, 49 ITD 177; viii) Hiralal Chunnilal Jain v/s ITO, ITA no.4547/Mum./2014, etc.; ix) Ramesh Kumar & Co. v/s ACIT, ITA no.2959/Mum./2014 x) Rajeev Kalathil, ITA no.6727/Mum./2012, etc.; xi) Rajesh P. Soni v/s ACIT, 100 TTJ 892; and xii) Diagnostic v/s CIT & Anr., 334 ITR 11. 7 M/s. Reliable Automotive P. Ltd. 7. Learned Departmental Representative, however, relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer / learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, the assessee had not furnished the required details like transport bill, mode of transport, stock register, etc., t…