M/S SHREE PALSIDDHA CONSTRUCTION,BULDHANA vs. PRINCIPAL C.I.T. -1,, NAGPUR
In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 194/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shree Palsiddha Construction Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Sakharkheda, Nagpur. Taluka Sindhkhedraja, Buldhana-443202. Pan No.: Ablfs 9009 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Nagpur Dated 08/03/2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pcit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Thereby Setting Aside Order Passed By Assessing Officer 2. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor. Return Of Income Was Filed On 03/12/2009 Declaring Total Income Of 2
For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263
bogus purchase and brought to tax the gross profit on the said purchase to the taxation. Moreover, the Hon’ble Bombay
8
ITA 194/NAG/2017_
M/s Shree Palsiddha Construction Sakharkheda Vs Pr.CIT
High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. vide its order dated 11/02/2019 had also restricted the additions under similar circumstances to the gross profit