ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S D RAVILAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PVT LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided ledger confirmations, invoices, and bank statements for the purchases, and the corresponding sales were not doubted, the entire purchases could not be disallowed. The addition of 12.5% of the gross profit, as confirmed by the CIT(A), was deemed reasonable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order restricting an addition made by the AO. The AO had reopened the assessment based on information that certain parties were providing bills without actual goods transactions, and the assessee had made purchases from these parties.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire purchases made from parties suspected of issuing bogus bills can be disallowed when the assessee has provided documentary evidence and made payments through cheques, and the corresponding sales are not disputed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 30/09/2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 for the A.Y.2010-11.
2 M/s. D. Ravilal Resource Management Pvt. Ltd 2. In the grounds of appeal
, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1.Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition at the rate 12.5% out of total addition of Rs. 65,88,578/- made in the assessment order ignoring the findings of the AO based on information received from Sales Tax Authorities, Mumbai?”
3. The facts in brief are that assessee has filed the return of income on 13/10/2010 declaring total income of Rs.96,80,322/-. Later on assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) on 10/01/2013 determining total income at Rs.1,02,19,420/-. Later on assessee’s case was reopened u/s.147 by issuance of notice u/s.148 dated 18/03/2015, which was based on some information from Sales Tax authorities that some of the parties were found to be engaged in providing bills as per the requirement of the customer and no goods were transacted in these transactions. Since, assessee was also found to have carried out purchases for sum aggregating to Rs.65,88,578/- from six of those parties, therefore, assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 and accordingly, addition has also been made by the ld. AO by disclosing that the entire purchases are made from six parties.
4. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the various submissions and following various decisions of the Tribunal, held that only gross profit should be added and he held that 12.5% of GP on the
5. After considering the findings given in the impugned orders as well as the submissions incorporated in the appellate order, we find that assessee is engaged in the business of civil contractor and the infrastructure development. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has filed ledger confirmations, copy of invoices and the bills raised and the copy of bank statements highlighting the said purchase transaction from all the parties including six parties. Thus, the source of purchases has been shown from the books and the payments have been made by account payee cheques. At the most it could be a case where assessee might have paid the cheque for purchase and thereafter purchased goods from grey market only to suppress gross profit. Once, the corresponding sales have not been doubted or the contract receipts, then the entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Accordingly, addition on account of GP rate of 12.5% on said purchases as done by the ld. CIT (A) following the decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 27th April,2023
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026