BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1,259 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 148(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,259Delhi539Jaipur227Kolkata220Ahmedabad160Chennai106Chandigarh104Surat102Bangalore96Rajkot80Cochin59Raipur57Indore55Guwahati55Pune54Hyderabad48Amritsar46Visakhapatnam40Lucknow31Nagpur28Patna18Allahabad17Agra14Jodhpur14Ranchi14Cuttack5Dehradun5Jabalpur3Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 147134Section 148130Addition to Income82Section 143(3)74Section 271(1)(c)69Section 6861Section 153C49Reopening of Assessment44Bogus Purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 729/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Khushali PandyaFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Showing 1–20 of 1,259 · Page 1 of 63

...
38
Disallowance36
Reassessment30
Section 25028
ITA 4828/MUM/2023[2010]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mandar Vaidya
Section 1Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)was justified in restricting the addition on account of law, the Ld.CIT(A)was justified

NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 4784/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mandar Vaidya
Section 1Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)was justified in restricting the addition on account of law, the Ld.CIT(A)was justified

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

2. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are tha Briefly stated, facts

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

2. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are tha Briefly stated, facts

OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2838/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

purchases of Rs.76404685/-. Omkar Metal and Alloys Corp. 2 Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construe Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construe regard being had to facts of the case such addition should not regard being had to facts of the case

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7289/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

148 and hence such assessment made was bad in law and liable to be quashed. was bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Hon. CIT Appeals erred in judicial

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5718/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

148 and hence such assessment made was bad in law and liable to be quashed. was bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Hon. CIT Appeals erred in judicial

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3223/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross profit @ 25% as against law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3400/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross profit @ 25% as against law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1616/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 148

2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has recorded the reasons on the recorded the reasons on the basis ol borrowed satisfaction. basis ol borrowed satisfaction. The reasons recorded on the basis of a report sent by the The reasons recorded on the basis of a report sent by the The reasons recorded on the basis

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1618/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 148

2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has recorded the reasons on the recorded the reasons on the basis ol borrowed satisfaction. basis ol borrowed satisfaction. The reasons recorded on the basis of a report sent by the The reasons recorded on the basis of a report sent by the The reasons recorded on the basis

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. J D ELECTRIC WORKS, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4521/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148

148 of the Act, income was filed. The Assessing Officer completed the he Assessing Officer completed the reassessment he Assessing Officer completed the after disallowing the entire purchases of Rs.23,04,437/- vide his after disallowing the entire purchases of Rs.23,04,437/ after disallowing the entire purchases of Rs.23,04,437/ order dated 16.01.2015 in terms of section

LEELABEN KANTILAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2926/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath B. Pasale
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 250Section 69C

bogus purchase transaction, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated after more than four years from the relevant assessment year and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/03/2018. From the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the Leelaben Kantilal Parekh ITA no.2926/Mum./2023 assessment under section 147 of the Act, forming part

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 617/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 143(3)Section 68

148 of the Act. I proceed to decide the issue on merits. issue on merits. 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 5,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 2

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 618/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 143(3)Section 68

148 of the Act. I proceed to decide the issue on merits. issue on merits. 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 5,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 2

ACIT-15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURYA FERROUS ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 1407/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 40A(3)

bogus expenses to deflate the profit thereby the profit thereby evading income tax. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cause and in law the order of Ld.CIT(A) is not bad in law in not realizing that the gods purchased by the assessee in cash through grey market invokes provisions of section 40A(3), hence the assessee

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 471/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made by assesee and failed to appreciate that unexplaine by assesee and failed to appreciate that unexplaine by assesee

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 449/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made by assesee and failed to appreciate that unexplaine by assesee and failed to appreciate that unexplaine by assesee

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 450/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made by assesee and failed to appreciate that unexplaine by assesee and failed to appreciate that unexplaine by assesee