Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

08-11-2019, Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, Section 132, 3, 153A, Tribunal Pune

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
3 days 14 hours ago #11370 by amit
Section - 132, 3, 153A, 133A
Order Date - 08-11-2019
Favouring - Partly
Court - Tribunal Pune
Appellant - Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad
Respondent - DCIT
Citation - 1119Taxpundit105
Appeal No. - ITA Nos. 813 to 818/PUN/2016
Asstt. Year - 2007-08 to 2012-13



This batch of ten appeals, having six appeals by the assessee and four cross appeals by the Revenue, involving the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13, arises out of a consolidated order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 10-02-2016. Since common issues are raised in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this combined order for the sake of convenience.

A.Y. 2007-08 :
ITA No.813/PUN/2016 – By assessee

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act ) was carried out on 09-08-2011 in Shahaji Bhad group of cases. The assessee, a part of this group as a proprietor of M/s. S.S. Engineers, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of sugar machinery, providing erection and installation services and setting up of sugar factories and also trading in spare parts. In response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee furnished his return of income on 29-03-2012 declaring total income of Rs.30,82,83,420/- (including disclosure of Rs.99,41,075/- made during the course of search). The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the original assessment in this case was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs.29,85,67,639/- as against the declared total income of Rs.29,81,42,340/-. He found that the search action divulged that the assessee was inflating expenses by recording bogus steel purchase bills from Mumbai based parties. Prior to search, a survey u/s.133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, which was converted into the instant search action. In the statement u/s.133A of the Act, the assessee was confronted with the fact that it had shown steel purchases from 30 parties in respect of which the relevant bills, purchase orders, goods received note, delivery challans etc. were not fully available. In many cases contact numbers given on the bills were found to be non-existing. On field investigation at the addresses of the 30 parties, it was found that there was no activity of sale of steel and the parties were non-existing entities. In response to question no. 22, the assessee submitted that the goods were purchased from these parties through some agent; goods were received directly at the factory or project sites; bills/delivery challans, lorry/Otroi receipts were submitted after receipt of material; payment was made by account payee cheques to the concerned parties and hence, the transactions were genuine. However, in view of lack of or some weaknesses in the documentation, the assessee admitted to the disallowance of the expenses of Rs.36,01,34,587/- claimed on account of such purchases over the years and also agreed to offer the same as an additional income. In the statement u/s.132(4), the assessee was confronted with his statement recorded u/s.133A of the Act in which he made disclosure of Rs.36.01 crore on account of disallowance of purchases. In response to question no.18 in the statement u/s.132(4), the assessee agreed with such surrender and agreed to offer disallowance in the concerned years. The amount of such purchases relating to the A.Y. 2007-08 stood at Rs.99,41,075/-. The assessee filed return u/s.153A of the Act for the year under consideration by including the said amount of Rs.99.41 lakh in the total income declared. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that all the purchases were genuine and hence, no addition should be made. It was further submitted that in case of certain purchases, the payment of sales-tax was not made by such parties and if the said suppliers had defaulted in making payment of sales-tax, then the assessee should not be considered to have recorded bogus purchases. He further stated that when the statement was recorded at the time of search, the suppliers were not traceable. However, later on, the assessee managed to get all the necessary documents from the parties who supplied the goods to the assessee. The AO found certain flaws in the purchase documents filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings In view of the fact that the assessee had himself offered Rs.99,41,075/- as additional income on account of bogus purchases in the course of search relating to the year under consideration and included the same in his return of income, the AO disregarded the assessee’s computation and added Rs.99,41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion.

3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended that all the purchases were genuine and payments were made by cheques in respect of the goods received pursuant to

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad vs. DCIT

Unable to display Google Map.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.071 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT Read More


CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN Read More




  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles



All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.


Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar