FEDERAL MOGUL POWERTRAIN SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING

ITA 3403/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 September 2026AY 2016-174 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's books of accounts were not rejected and no defects were pointed out by the AO, an addition solely based on variation in net profit ratio was not sustainable. The explanation provided by the assessee for the fall in profit rate was considered valid.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in wholesale distribution of automobile components, explained a fall in net profit rate due to increased consumption of goods and employee costs. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition based on the variation in profit rate, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether an addition can be made solely on account of variation in profit rate when the assessee's books of accounts are not rejected and a reasonable explanation is provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Adv. & Sh. R.K

Hearing: 08.09.2026Pronounced: 16.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 3403/DEL/2026 A.Y. : 2016-17

FEDERAL MOGUL POWERTRAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD., C.R. BUILDING, 803, BEST SKY TOWER, NEW DELHI – 2 NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 034 [PAN: AABCF2379K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Pradip Dinodia, Adv. & Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CA Department by : Sh. Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 08.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.09.2026

O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), (hereinafter referred as CIT(A)), New Delhi dated 16.1.2026. Assessment was framed by the ACIT, Circle 9(1), Delhi vide order dated 11.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) relevant to assessment year 2016-17.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition solely on account of variation in profit rate and accordingly added a sum of Rs. 65,19,933/- on account of fall in net profit rate.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that assessee is in engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of automobile components and manufacturing of twist and flex tubes for all kinds of vehicles. Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings showed details of various expenditure which were filed before the Assessing Officer. The assessee produced the complete books of accounts, including ledger accounts, stock register etc. The Assessing Officer raised a query vide questionnaire dated 7.10.2019 as under:-

Q.No. 3 Please refer to clause 40 of TAR and explain fall in GP ratio by 0.82% (from 33.53% to 32.71%) equivalent to Rs. 27,87,404/- and fall in Net Profit by 17.49% (from 45.18% to 27.69% = 17.49%) equivalent to Rs. 5,94,53,304/-. Also submit credible documentary evidence. 4. The assessee thereafter, replied that there was decrease in interest income on account of inter-corporate loans amounting to Rs. 5,01,45,967/- i.e. interest income of R. 5,45,71,123 (-) fall in GP of Rs. 43,25,126/-. The assessee explained that a negligible fall in GP @0.82% amounting to Rs. 27,87,404/- has also contributed to the fall in NP ratio. But the AO after noting the explanation of the assessee held that interest declared remains at Rs. 5,29,33,371/- after adding a sum of Rs. 27,87,404/- and therefore, remaining difference of fall in net profit at Rs. 65,19,933/- was added as unexplained.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO.

Against the action of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We noted that the assessee has complete books of accounts including bills

and vouchers, ledger accounts, stock registers, but no defect was pointed out by

the AO. Even the books of accounts were not rejected. The assesee explained

before the AO that there is fall in net profit ratio due to variation in GP to the

extent of Rs. 23,12,595/-. The comparison of financial figures of last two years and

this year explained (i) increase consumption of goods, raw material and

components which has been increased by significant percentage of 3.18% and (ii)

regular incremental in employee cost @ 0.47%. It was explained by the assessee

that there are enough factors for reduction of net profit ratio in the year under

consideration by 0.68% which is negligible decrease in NP and can be attributed to

the above factor or the general business circumstances of the assessee. We after

noting these factors are of the view that AO has not rejected the books of

accounts and once the books of accounts are accepted as it is not variation and no

such net profit ratio can be made. This view is supported by the decision of the

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt Poonam Rani (2010) 192

Taxman 167 (Delhi). In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and legal position, as 3

referred above, we delete the addition in dispute and allow the ground raised by the

assessee on merits of the case.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.09.2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(M. BALAGANESH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

SRBhatnaggar Date: 16-9-2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →