SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI
In the result, Revenue's appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose
ITA 275/RAN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017
Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.275/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shah Brothers, Chaibasa……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aazfs7498F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,04,03,980/- For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.102.108 Accepting The Said Returned Income. Subsequently, Based On Information Received From Dcit, Cc-1(3), Mumbai, It Was Alleged That The Said Assessee Had Claimed A Bogus Contract Expenses Of Rs.2,69,14,526/- In Lieu Of The Bogus Work Order To M/S Pandhe Infracons Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2015-16 Without Any Actual Work Had Been Performed. The Revenue Relied Upon Search Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Conducted On M/S
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 250Section 251
139 of the Act declaring total income of Rs.14,04,03,980/- for assessment year 2016-17. The assessment of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.102.108 accepting the said returned income. Subsequently, based on information received from DCIT, CC-1(3), Mumbai, it was alleged that the said assessee had claimed a bogus contract
