M/S MOOL RAJ VIJAY KUMAR, KAUSHAMBI V. DY./ACIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

ITA 39/ALLD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Mool Raj Vijay Kumar Naya Bazar, the appellant, who contested the additions made to their declared income for the assessment year 2018-19. Initially, the assessee declared an income of Rs. 6,51,629, which was significantly increased by the Assessing Officer to Rs. 18,96,933 following the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the detailed order of the CIT(A), upheld the additions and dismissed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771908 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd., Navodaya Castle (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, N. Tarika Property Invest (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, Sadiq Sheikh vs. CIT, Pavankumar M. Sanghvi vs. Income Tax Officer, Gayathri Associates vs. Income Tax Officer, Smt Puja Grover vs. ACIT, CIT vs. Maithan International, CIT vs. P. Mohankala, Sagittraious Builders & Colonisers v. CIT, Alfa Bhoj Ltd. vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A.K. SINGH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment year:2018-19 M/s Mool Raj Vijay Kumar Naya Bazar, Kaushambi PAN:AAIFM9789Q Vs. Dy.C.I.T., Central Circle, Allahabad (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. This appeal vide I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 against impugned appellate order dated 10/03/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2022- 23/1050583147(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,51,629/-. The Assessing Officer Appellant by None (Application) Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 2 processed the return filed by the assessee and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 08/06/2021 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,96,933/- by making various additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 10/03/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A). Being aggrieved further, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard learned D.R. and perused the materials available on record. The learned D.R. placed reliance on the assessment order and the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). He placed further reliance on the written submissions in which prayer has been made to confirm the additions of Rs.59,503/-, Rs.4,85,800/- and Rs.7,00,000/- In the aforesaid written submissions, reliance was placed by learned D.R. on the following case laws: (a) [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC) Pr.CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (assessment year 2009-10) (b) [2015] 230 taxman 268 (SC), Navodaya Castle (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT Dismissing SLP against [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Delhi) (c) [2014] 227 Taxman 373 (SC) N. Tarika Property Invest (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT dismissing SLP against [2014] 221 Taxman 14 (Delhi) (d) [2021] 277 Taxman 594 (SC), Sadiq Sheikh vs. CIT Dismissing assessee’s SLP against [2020] 122 taxmann.com 39 (Bom.) (e) [2018] 258 Taxman 160 (SC), Pavankumar M. Sanghvi vs. Income Tax Officer, Dismissing SLP against [2018] 404 ITR 601 (Gujarat) (f) [2014] 221 Taxman 143 (Andhra Pradesh) (Mag.) Gayathri Associates vs. Income Tax Officer (g) Smt Puja Grover vs. ACIT (I.T.A. No.140/A/2024) order dated 20/03/2025 (h) [2015] 375 ITR 123 (Calcutta), CIT vs. Maithan International (i) [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohankala Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 3 (j) [2012] 204 Taxman 135 (Allahabad) Sagittraious Builders &Colonisers v. CIT (k) [2019] 102 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi) Alfa Bhoj Ltd. vs. DCIT 4. We have heard learned Department Representative and perused the materials available on record. It is found that the learned CIT(A) has passed a detailed order after giving due consideration to the facts of the case, applicable law and decided precedents. The relevant portion of the order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 4 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 5 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 6 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 7 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 8 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 9 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 10 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 11 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 12 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 13 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 14 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 15 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 16 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 17 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 18 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 19 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 20 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 21 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 22 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 23 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 24 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 25 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 26 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 27 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 28 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 29 4.1 Nothing has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the learned CIT(A) in the aforesaid order. In view of the foregoing, the aforesaid additions of Rs.59,503/-, Rs.4,85,800/- and Rs.7,00,000/- are confirmed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 25/08/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (SUBHASH MALGURIA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:25/08/2025 *Singh Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 30 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Allahabad Printed from counselvise.com "