VIKAS KUMAR AGARWAL PROP VIKAS TRADERS ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL ) , MORADABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to 4% of the total undisclosed purchases, considering the assessee's average GP rate and to meet the ends of justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee made undisclosed purchases of oil from another entity. The Assessing Officer made an addition for the entire undisclosed purchases, which the CIT(A) reduced by estimating profit at 8%.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the correct rate of profit to be applied on undisclosed purchases. The Tribunal also considered the applicability of presumptive taxation provisions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow-3 [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for Assessment Years 2019-20 & 2020-21, respectively. Both the impugned orders are of even date i.e. 26.02.2026.
Shri K.R. Rastogi, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of a search carried out in the case of M/s. Ravindra Oil and Ginning Mills on 02.06.2022. The assessee had purchased oil from M/s. Ravindra Oil and Ginning Mills during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. Admittedly, part of oil purchased from M/s. Ravindra Oil and Ginning Mills was not disclosed by the assessee in its books. The Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs.24,74,380/- u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) i.e. the entire undisclosed purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 23.03.2024, the assessee 1
ITA 4578 & 4579/DEL/2026 VIKAS KUMAR AGARWAL PROP VIKAS TRADERS carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee by reducing GST, and estimating profit rate at 8%. Thus, restricting the addition to Rs.25,64,374/- . The ld. Counsel submits that in the case of Sushil Kumar Garg, the AO under identical set of facts has made addition @1.78%. He stated that the addition @8% is very much on the higher side and prayed for restricting it to the GP already declared by the assessee i.e. 2.94% on the undisclosed sales.
Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that the assessee has not declared the purchases, the CIT(A) has rightly estimated sales by applying profit rate @8% under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act i.e. on a presumptive basis.
Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had made certain undisclosed purchases from M/s. Ravindra Oil and Ginning Mills. The limited dispute in the instant appeal is the rate of GP that has been applied by the CIT(A). The AO made addition of the entire amount of undisclosed purchases, the CIT(A) in First Appellate proceedings has restricted the addition by applying GP rate @8%. The assessee has furnished a chart showing that the average GP of the assessee of the two preceding and two succeeding assessment years comes to 2.99%. Considering entire facts of the case and to meet the ends of justice, GP addition @4% is estimated. The AO is directed to restrict the addition to 4% of total purchases.
ITA No. 4579/Del/2026 (AY 2020-21)
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the facts in the impugned assessment year are identical to the facts in AY 2019-20. The ld. DR endorsed the same. Since, the facts and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both appeals are similar, the findings given while adjudicating appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 would mutatis mutandis apply to AY 2020- 21.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 25th of June, 2026 Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 29-June-2026
ITA 4578 & 4579/DEL/2026 VIKAS KUMAR AGARWAL PROP VIKAS TRADERS
Copy to: VIKAS KUMAR AGARWAL PROP VIKAS TRADERS , 1 NAGINA P.O, BIJNOR-246762, UTTAR PRADESH
DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL ) , INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR 2 BHAWAN, NEW CIVIL LINES, MORADABAD, UTTAR PRADESH
3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 69C
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mritunjay Singh, Kudra vs AO, SasaramITA 454/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Shantilal Mafaji Kachchhava, Banaskantha vs ITO WD 1 Palanpur, PalanpurITA 2256/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Madhusudhan Gade, Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, NizamabadITA 379/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026