LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase amount of ₹ 43,825,000/– as bogus. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase amount of ₹ 43,825,000/– as bogus. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases for assessment year 2018 19\nu/s.69C of the Act of ₹ 42,815,000/- the learned CIT – A held that\napart from stating that the relevant bills/invoices/payments details\nand GST returns have been submitted no other details has been\nfurnished by the assessee to show that the purchases are real. Therefore, he upheld the findings of the learned assessing

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses\n(c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with\nthe said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and\n2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment\nyears.\n18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search action

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses\n(c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with\nthe said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and\n2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment\nyears.\n18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search action

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses (c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with the said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment years. 18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search action

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses\n(c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with\nthe said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and\n2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment\nyears.\n\n18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search action

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

bogus contractors bills. These cash that are\ngenerated are routed back to Bangalore through our cars. This we will use it for multiple\npurpose such as personal expenses, capital payouts etc. The entire handling of cash is done\nby me and my assistant Shri. Mathew Joseph.\nPage 26 of 147\n14.3 The same facts were confronted to the Chairman

M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

purchase of raw materials which explained his large drawings of cash from the bank. Learned counsel then cited a host of decisions to bring home the point that no evidence or document can be relied upon unless it is shown to the assessee. Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT. Similarly, the requirement of cross-examination as the requirement of the rules

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

purchase peace and avoid any protracted litigation. Hence, while filing the return of income u/s 153A for AY 15-16 and AY 16-17, certain additional income came to be disclosed. The following is the original income declared, and the additional income declared for AY 15-16 and AY 16- 17 (returns are placed in pages

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

purchase peace and avoid any protracted litigation. Hence, while filing the return of income u/s_153A for AY 15-16 and AY 16-17, certain additional income came to be disclosed. The following is the original income declared, and the additional income declared for AY 15-16 and AY 16- 17 (returns are placed in pages 134-195 of the paper