Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cricle -1, Aurangabad V. SanjaykumarRamkishan Mantri HUF, Jalna

ITSSA 69/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals by the Revenue against Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri (HUF) for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2011-2012. The appeals were based on the CIT(A)-12, Pune's common order which held that no additions or disallowances could be made without incriminating material found during a search. The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision, particularly regarding the disallowance of unrecorded purchases, which was restricted to the gross profit element. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s findings and citing relevant judicial precedents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137545 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom.), CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC), PCIT vs. M/s. Mohammad Haji Adam And Co. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. (S.S).A Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/PUN./2022 Assessment Years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-12 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Cantonment, Near Holy Cross English School, Aurangabad – 431 002 Maharashtra. vs. Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri (HUF), 187, Priyadarshani Colony, Shambhaji Nagar, Jalna. PIN – 431 203 PAN AADHM9093C Maharashtra. Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Assessee by : -None- Date of Hearing : 12.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.04.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : These Revenue’s four appeals for assessment years 2008-2009 to 2011-2012, arise against the CIT(A)-12, Pune’s common order in case Nos.PN/CIT(A)-12/11128, 10627, 10463 and 10465, dated 30.06.2022, assessment year-wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the Revenue’s identical first and foremost substantive ground in former three assessment years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 in I.T.(S.S.)A.Nos.69 to 70/PUN./2022 pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that no addition/ disallowance can be made in absence of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of the search action. Learned CIT-DR vehemently supported the Revenue’s pleadings that any such incriminating material found or seized during the course of search is nowhere a condition precedent before disallowing or adding any item of income or expenditure in the course of a sec.153A r.w.s. 143(3) assessment. He failed to dispute that no such incriminating material had been found or seized during the course of search in issue dated 02.05.2013. Various landmark judicial precedents CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC); to name a few, have already settled the instant issue against the department and in assessee’s favour that sec.153A r.w.s.143(3) assessment in absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search is invalid. We thus find no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s above stated findings on the instant legal issue. 3 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 3. The Revenue’s remaining identical substantive in the former three appeals and sole issue in last appeal I.T.(S.S.)A.No.71/PUN./2022 for assessment year 2011-2012 seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing the alleged un-recorded purchases involving varying sums as reversed in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion in last assessment year 2011-12 as follows : 4 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 5 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 6 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 7 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 8 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 9 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 10 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 4. There could be hardly any dispute that the CIT(A) has already confirmed the impugned addition of above stated un-recorded purchases outside books of account from M/s. Mahalaxmi, in principle. Suffice to say, the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance before us is that the same ought not to have been restricted only to the gross profit element @ 4% only. We see no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance as the CIT(A) has already taken note of various judicial precedents that such unaccounted purchases have not to be disallowed in entirety but to the extent of the gross profit element therein only. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent decision in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bom.) PCIT vs. M/s. Mohammad Haji Adam And Co. also reiterates the very principle. Faced with the situation, we see no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s above stated detailed discussion partly restricting the impugned disallowance of unaccounted purchases to the extent of 4% G.P. rate in issue only. The Revenue fails in the instant latter issue on merits as well. Ordered accordingly. 5. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 11 I.T.(SS).A.Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71/Pun./2022 Shri Sanjay Ramkishan Mantri HUF Jalna. 6. These Revenue’s four appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13.04.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. PADMAHSHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 13 th April, 2023 VBP/- Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. The Appellant; 2. The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A), Pune-12, Pune 4. 5. 6. The Pr. CIT (Central), Nagpur. The DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune Guard File BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary : ITAT : Pune