Chandrakant Raghunathrao Goje, Nanded V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nanded

ITA 603/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6753 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ᭠यायपीठ पुणे मᱶ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.603/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chandrakant Raghunathrao Goje, Prop. New Marathwada Traders, Sant Kripa Market, Nanded. PAN : ABJPG1263D .......अपीलाथᱮ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. ITO, Ward-1, Nanded. ......ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07.12.2021 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 08.01.2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is an individual and dealer in machinery goods. The return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 07.10.2009 declaring total income of Rs.3,45,270/- and there was no scrutiny assessment against the said return of income. Subsequently, based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee is involved in the bogus purchases, a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA No.603/PUN/2018 1961 (‘the Act’) was issued on 06.03.2014. In response to the said notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the same return of income as the original return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the assessment was completed vide order dated 25.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without making any addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases. However, Assessing Officer made addition of ad-hoc disallowance on several expenses of Rs.3,45,267/-. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the same was confirmed. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 4. Before us, during the course of hearing of appeal, an additional ground of appeal was raised by the assessee, which reads as under :- “6. Appellant contends that the learned CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad; erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the learned ITO, Ward-1, Nanded; u/s 147 of the ITA, 1961; though no addition was made on the reason for which notice u/s 148 of the ITA, 1961 was issued. Appellant contends that the order passed by the learned I-T Authorities is bad in law considering the ratio laid down by the Honorable Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. – 331 ITR 236.” 5. It is submitted that the additional ground of appeal goes to very root of the matter and it is purely legal issue does not involve any investigation of facts and, therefore, the additional ground of appeal should be admitted for adjudication. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection for admission of the additional ground of appeal. 7. Since the additional ground of appeal goes to very root of the matter, we shall deal with the additional ground of appeal. Vide this additional ground 3 ITA No.603/PUN/2018 of appeal, the appellant submits that the assessment was reopened for the purpose of making addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. However, no addition in respect of bogus purchases was made by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer made an ad-hoc disallowance of several expenses. It is contended that when the Assessing Officer had not made addition in respect of items for which the reassessment was made, no other addition can be made in the light of the decisions in the case of (i) RanbaxyLaboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and (ii) CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). 8. The ld. Sr. DR also agreed with the above proposition. 9. In view of the settled position of law, in the present case since no addition was made in respect of items for which the reassessment was sought to be reopened, no other addition can be made. Accordingly, the additional ground of appeal stands allowed. 10. Since, we held that the very reopening the assessment is invalid in law, we do not find necessary to deal with the issues in appeal on merits. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on this 08 th day of December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 08 th December, 2021. Sujeet 4 ITA No.603/PUN/2018 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Aurangabad. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.