INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHREE SUNDHA STEELS PVT.LTD, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 1703/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2009-10

ITO 5(3)(1), Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 526, 5th floor, Aayakar Shop No. 15 & 16, Ground Vs. Bhawan, Floor, D Wing, 122 Kehtwadi Mumbai-400020. Back Road, Gora Gandhi Palace, Mumbai-400004. PAN NO. AAICS 1816 M Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 15/04/2026 : 20/04/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 2, Ahmadabad [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2009-10, raising following grounds:

Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 1703/MUM/2026

from 1.23 percent to 0.2 percent of the purchases which works from 1.23 percent to 0.2 percent of the purchases which works from 1.23 percent to 0.2 percent of the purchases which works out to Rs.5,50,070/ out to Rs.5,50,070/-. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the erred in granting relief to the assessee on the profit element assessee on the profit element embedded in bogus purchases from 1.23 percent to 0.2 embedded in bogus purchases from 1.23 percent to 0.2 embedded in bogus purchases from 1.23 percent to 0.2 percent of Rs.28,32,858/ percent of Rs.28,32,858/- without considering the fact that the without considering the fact that the addition is made for accommodation entry is covered by addition is made for accommodation entry is covered by addition is made for accommodation entry is covered by exception mentioned in para 3.1(h) of Circular No. 5/2024 exception mentioned in para 3.1(h) of Circular No. 5 exception mentioned in para 3.1(h) of Circular No. 5 dated 15/03/2024. dated 15/03/2024. 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that t Briefly stated the facts of the case are that t Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and company was engaged in the business of trading company was engaged in the business of trading non-ferrous metals. For the year under consideration, the assessee ferrous metals. For the year under consideration, the assessee ferrous metals. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at filed return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at filed return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,99,682/-. The regular scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the . The regular scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the . The regular scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 29.12.2011 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.11,99,682/- 29.12.2011 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.11,99,682/ 29.12.2011 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.11,99,682/ i.e. the returned income was accepted. Subsequently, in view of the i.e. the returned income was accepted. Subsequently, in view of the i.e. the returned income was accepted. Subsequently, in view of the information from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer information from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer information from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that the income esca recorded reasons to believe that the income escaped assessment ped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 02.03.2015. In response, and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 02.03.2015. In response, and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 02.03.2015. In response, the assessee filed the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2009 and the return of income on 30.09.2009 and the reassessment u/s 147 reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 21.03.2016 of the Act was completed on 21.03.2016, wherein total income was assessed at Rs.45,82,610/-. The wherein total income was assessed at Rs.45,82,610/ wherein total income was assessed at Rs.45,82,610/ Assessing Officer found the assessee to be involved in making bogus Assessing Officer found the assessee to be involved in making bogus Assessing Officer found the assessee to be involved in making bogus purchase from various entities. The Assessing Officer based on the purchase from various entities. The Assessing Officer based on the purchase from various entities. The Assessing Officer based on the gross profit rate of last four years computed the average gross profit gross profit rate of last four years computed the average gross profit gross profit rate of last four years computed the average gross profit rate at 1.23% and after applying rate at 1.23% and after applying on the total purchase amounting hase amounting

Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1703/MUM/2026

to Rs.21,50,34,816/ to Rs.21,50,34,816/-, computed total addition computed total addition towards bogus purchases at Rs.33,82,928/ Rs.33,82,928/-.

“7.3 During the appeal proceeding, “7.3 During the appeal proceeding, the appellant has submitted that the appellant has submitted that the issue under appeal has been decided in the favour of appellant the issue under appeal has been decided in the favour of appellant the issue under appeal has been decided in the favour of appellant by Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai Bench for the AY 2011 by Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai Bench for the AY 2011 by Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai Bench for the AY 2011-12 and A.Y. 2008 and A.Y. 2008-09 where in Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the 09 where in Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the addition on account of alleged addition on account of alleged bogus purchases should be restricted bogus purchases should be restricted to the extent of 0.2% of total such purchases. The appellant has to the extent of 0.2% of total such purchases. The appellant has to the extent of 0.2% of total such purchases. The appellant has further submitted that Revenue went in appeal against the ITAT further submitted that Revenue went in appeal against the ITAT further submitted that Revenue went in appeal against the ITAT order before the High Court of Bombay, where the Hon'ble Court order before the High Court of Bombay, where the Hon'ble Court order before the High Court of Bombay, where the Hon'ble Court dismissed the appeal filed dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Due to similarity in by the revenue. Due to similarity in grounds of appeal involved in the present appeal, the appellant has grounds of appeal involved in the present appeal, the appellant has grounds of appeal involved in the present appeal, the appellant has requested for disposing off the instant pending appeal. requested for disposing off the instant pending appeal. requested for disposing off the instant pending appeal. 7.4 From the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that 7.4 From the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that 7.4 From the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that assessment proceeding for the yea assessment proceeding for the year under dispute was re r under dispute was re-opened on the basis of receipt of certain information from the Investigation on the basis of receipt of certain information from the Investigation on the basis of receipt of certain information from the Investigation Wing. As per the information shared in this case, the assessee was Wing. As per the information shared in this case, the assessee was Wing. As per the information shared in this case, the assessee was found to be involved in making bogus purchases from various found to be involved in making bogus purchases from various found to be involved in making bogus purchases from various entities. In A.Y. 2009 entities. In A.Y. 2009-10, based on the GP ratio of last 4 years, sed on the GP ratio of last 4 years,

Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 1703/MUM/2026

average has been worked out at 1.23% and after applying the same average has been worked out at 1.23% and after applying the same average has been worked out at 1.23% and after applying the same to total purchases amounting to Rs. 27,50,34,816/ to total purchases amounting to Rs. 27,50,34,816/-, total addition , total addition of Rs. 33,82,928/ of Rs. 33,82,928/- was made to the total income against which the was made to the total income against which the instant proceeding is instant proceeding is pending. 7.5 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted 7.5 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted 7.5 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted the order of ADDL/JCIT (A) the order of ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 SILIGURI dated 20.01.2025 allowing 2 SILIGURI dated 20.01.2025 allowing the appeal in favour of the appellant. The relevant as under: the appeal in favour of the appellant. The relevant as under: the appeal in favour of the appellant. The relevant as under: - portion of said order is reproduced as ur COME TAY D portion of said order is reproduced as ur COME TAY DEPARTMENT EPARTMENT

"In the instant case, the appellant company company has has "In the instant case, the appellant company company has has "In the instant case, the appellant company company has has appealed a against the order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer appealed a against the order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer appealed a against the order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 30.03.2016. In the present case, the Ld. u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 30.03.2016. In the present case, the Ld. u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 30.03.2016. In the present case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has added Rs. 3,53,418/ Assessing Officer has added Rs. 3,53,418/- on the ba on the basis of bogus purchase i.e. 1.31% of the purchase value of Rs. 2,69,78,490/ purchase i.e. 1.31% of the purchase value of Rs. 2,69,78,490/ purchase i.e. 1.31% of the purchase value of Rs. 2,69,78,490/- During the appeal proceeding, the appellant has submitted the order During the appeal proceeding, the appellant has submitted the order During the appeal proceeding, the appellant has submitted the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench for the AY 2011 of ITAT, Mumbai Bench for the AY 2011-12 in which Hon'ble 12 in which Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the addition on account of alle Tribunal has held that the addition on account of alle Tribunal has held that the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the extent of 0.2% of total such purchases should be restricted to the extent of 0.2% of total such purchases should be restricted to the extent of 0.2% of total such purchases. Revenue went in appeal against the ITAT order before purchases. Revenue went in appeal against the ITAT order before purchases. Revenue went in appeal against the ITAT order before the High Court of Bombay, where the Hon'ble Court dismissed the the High Court of Bombay, where the Hon'ble Court dismissed the the High Court of Bombay, where the Hon'ble Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Due to similarity in g appeal filed by the revenue. Due to similarity in grounds of appeal rounds of appeal involved in both the years, the appellant has requested for involved in both the years, the appellant has requested for involved in both the years, the appellant has requested for disposing off the instant pending appeal. From the perusal of the disposing off the instant pending appeal. From the perusal of the disposing off the instant pending appeal. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is ascertained that assessment proceeding for assessment order, it is ascertained that assessment proceeding for assessment order, it is ascertained that assessment proceeding for the year under dispute was re the year under dispute was re-opened on the basis of receipt of sis of receipt of certain information from the Investigation Wing. As per the certain information from the Investigation Wing. As per the certain information from the Investigation Wing. As per the information shared in this case, the assessee was found to be information shared in this case, the assessee was found to be information shared in this case, the assessee was found to be involved in making bogus purchases from Hawala dealers. Total involved in making bogus purchases from Hawala dealers. Total involved in making bogus purchases from Hawala dealers. Total such purchases amounted to Rs. 2,69,78,490/ such purchases amounted to Rs. 2,69,78,490/- in the na in the name of Navratna Impex and New Steel India. AO came to notice that while Navratna Impex and New Steel India. AO came to notice that while Navratna Impex and New Steel India. AO came to notice that while examining similar Page 5 of 7 AAICS1816M examining similar Page 5 of 7 AAICS1816M- SHREE SUNDHA SHREE SUNDHA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED A.Y. 2008 STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED A.Y. 2008- 09 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024 09 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1072336848(1) information about bogus purchases from 25/1072336848(1) information about bogus purchases from 25/1072336848(1) information about bogus purchases from Hawala dealers, s Hawala dealers, scrutiny assessment was finalized for AY 2011 crutiny assessment was finalized for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 after making addition in accordance with the GP Rate 13 after making addition in accordance with the GP Rate 13 after making addition in accordance with the GP Rate declared for the two years. In similar vein, GP Rate of the year declared for the two years. In similar vein, GP Rate of the year declared for the two years. In similar vein, GP Rate of the year under dispute i.e.1.31% was applied to the quantum of net bogus under dispute i.e.1.31% was applied to the quantum of net bogus under dispute i.e.1.31% was applied to the quantum of net bogus purchases resu purchases resulting in total addition of Rs. 3,53,418/ lting in total addition of Rs. 3,53,418/- against which the instant proceeding is pending. which the instant proceeding is pending. As discussed above, when addition was made at par with GP Rate As discussed above, when addition was made at par with GP Rate As discussed above, when addition was made at par with GP Rate applied for the year for AY 2011 applied for the year for AY 2011-12, appeal was filed before Ld. CIT 12, appeal was filed before Ld. CIT (Appeal)-10, Mumbai. First appell 10, Mumbai. First appellate order was passed on ate order was passed on 25.07.2016 vide which income of the assessee was further 25.07.2016 vide which income of the assessee was further 25.07.2016 vide which income of the assessee was further enhanced and the quantum of addition was increased to 12.5% of enhanced and the quantum of addition was increased to 12.5% of enhanced and the quantum of addition was increased to 12.5% of

Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 1703/MUM/2026

such bogus purchases. The basis for the same was found in the such bogus purchases. The basis for the same was found in the such bogus purchases. The basis for the same was found in the case of Simit P Seth, 2013 (356 ITR 451) pronounce case of Simit P Seth, 2013 (356 ITR 451) pronounce case of Simit P Seth, 2013 (356 ITR 451) pronounced by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The appellant challenged the order u/s 250 High Court of Gujarat. The appellant challenged the order u/s 250 High Court of Gujarat. The appellant challenged the order u/s 250 and filed further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai. In its and filed further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai. In its and filed further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai. In its order dated 31.07.2018 and subsequent corrigendum issued on order dated 31.07.2018 and subsequent corrigendum issued on order dated 31.07.2018 and subsequent corrigendum issued on 06.08.2018, 06.08.2018, 06.08.2018, Hon'ble Hon'ble Hon'ble ITAT ITAT ITAT distinguished distinguished distinguished the the the facts facts facts and and and circumstances of the present case from those of the case of Simit P circumstances of the present case from those of the case of Simit P circumstances of the present case from those of the case of Simit P Seth and observed that AO has not rejected the books of account. In Seth and observed that AO has not rejected the books of account. In Seth and observed that AO has not rejected the books of account. In addition, GP corresponding to genuine purchases is quite less than addition, GP corresponding to genuine purchases is quite less than addition, GP corresponding to genuine purchases is quite less than the GP attributable to non the GP attributable to non-genuine purchases. Hon'bl genuine purchases. Hon'ble ITAT also held that quantitative statement of purchases and sales was not held that quantitative statement of purchases and sales was not held that quantitative statement of purchases and sales was not under dispute and therefore, it directed to quantify taxable profit @ under dispute and therefore, it directed to quantify taxable profit @ under dispute and therefore, it directed to quantify taxable profit @ 0.2% of total bogus purchases. The appellant has affirmed that the 0.2% of total bogus purchases. The appellant has affirmed that the 0.2% of total bogus purchases. The appellant has affirmed that the order of the ITAT has attained finality bec order of the ITAT has attained finality because Hon'ble Bombay ause Hon'ble Bombay High Court has rejected the appeal filed in this regard by the High Court has rejected the appeal filed in this regard by the High Court has rejected the appeal filed in this regard by the department. Stating thus, the appellant has sought relief on account department. Stating thus, the appellant has sought relief on account department. Stating thus, the appellant has sought relief on account of the addition made during scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of of the addition made during scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of of the addition made during scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the IT Act. Briefly stated, sole ingre Briefly stated, sole ingredient of addition made in the case of the dient of addition made in the case of the appellant remains its transaction with Hawala dealers for making appellant remains its transaction with Hawala dealers for making appellant remains its transaction with Hawala dealers for making bogus purchases. Since, jurisdiction ITAT has already given its bogus purchases. Since, jurisdiction ITAT has already given its bogus purchases. Since, jurisdiction ITAT has already given its verdict in the matter holding that total profit embedded in such verdict in the matter holding that total profit embedded in such verdict in the matter holding that total profit embedded in such bogus purchases may bogus purchases may be computed @ 0.2% of such purchases and be computed @ 0.2% of such purchases and the order has attained finality, applying the ratio of the same the order has attained finality, applying the ratio of the same the order has attained finality, applying the ratio of the same judgment would serve the interest of justice in the instant case judgment would serve the interest of justice in the instant case judgment would serve the interest of justice in the instant case because facts and circumstances of both the years are almost because facts and circumstances of both the years are almost because facts and circumstances of both the years are almost identical. Even otherwise identical. Even otherwise, if the quantum of GP of 1.31% which was , if the quantum of GP of 1.31% which was applied for making addition during scrutiny assessment is left applied for making addition during scrutiny assessment is left applied for making addition during scrutiny assessment is left alone, it would give rise to double calculation of GP on the quantum alone, it would give rise to double calculation of GP on the quantum alone, it would give rise to double calculation of GP on the quantum of bogus purchases. It is therefore found quite rational to follow the of bogus purchases. It is therefore found quite rational to follow the of bogus purchases. It is therefore found quite rational to follow the spirit of the judgment given by Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own he judgment given by Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own he judgment given by Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case and hold that the quantum of profit attributable to total bogus case and hold that the quantum of profit attributable to total bogus case and hold that the quantum of profit attributable to total bogus purchases of Rs. 2,69,78,490/ purchases of Rs. 2,69,78,490/- may be calculated @ 0.2% of the may be calculated @ 0.2% of the same. Since, 0.2% of Rs. 2,69,78,490/ same. Since, 0.2% of Rs. 2,69,78,490/- works out at Rs. 53,957/ works out at Rs. 53,957/- only, the appellant is held eligible for getting relief of Rs. 2,99,461/ ly, the appellant is held eligible for getting relief of Rs. 2,99,461/ ly, the appellant is held eligible for getting relief of Rs. 2,99,461/-. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed and the addition Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed and the addition Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed and the addition stands confirmed to the extent of Rs. 53,957/ stands confirmed to the extent of Rs. 53,957/- only." 7.6 The appellant has further submitted that against the said orde 7.6 The appellant has further submitted that against the said orde 7.6 The appellant has further submitted that against the said order of AddI/Jt.CIT(Appeal) of AddI/Jt.CIT(Appeal)- 2, Siliguri dated 20.01.2025, revenue filed 2, Siliguri dated 20.01.2025, revenue filed further appeal before ITAT Mumbai and the appeal of the revenue further appeal before ITAT Mumbai and the appeal of the revenue further appeal before ITAT Mumbai and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed by Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide order dated was dismissed by Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide order dated was dismissed by Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide order dated 21.04.2025 in ITA No.1756/Mum/2024 (Assessment year: 2008 21.04.2025 in ITA No.1756/Mum/2024 (Assessment year: 2008 21.04.2025 in ITA No.1756/Mum/2024 (Assessment year: 2008- 09). Since, the issue has been decided in favour of appellant, , the issue has been decided in favour of appellant, , the issue has been decided in favour of appellant, respectfully following the decision of jurisdiction ITAT, Mumbai, it is respectfully following the decision of jurisdiction ITAT, Mumbai, it is respectfully following the decision of jurisdiction ITAT, Mumbai, it is held that total profit embedded in such bogus purchases may be held that total profit embedded in such bogus purchases may be held that total profit embedded in such bogus purchases may be

Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 1703/MUM/2026

computed @ 0.2% of such purchases. Since, the issue has attained computed @ 0.2% of such purchases. Since, the issue has attained computed @ 0.2% of such purchases. Since, the issue has attained finality; applying the ratio of the same judgment would serve the ality; applying the ratio of the same judgment would serve the ality; applying the ratio of the same judgment would serve the interest of justice in the instant case because facts and interest of justice in the instant case because facts and interest of justice in the instant case because facts and circumstances of both the years are almost identical. Even circumstances of both the years are almost identical. Even circumstances of both the years are almost identical. Even otherwise, if the quantum of GP of 1.31% which was applied for otherwise, if the quantum of GP of 1.31% which was applied for otherwise, if the quantum of GP of 1.31% which was applied for making addit making addition during scrutiny assessment is left alone, it would ion during scrutiny assessment is left alone, it would give rise to double calculation of GP on the quantum of bogus give rise to double calculation of GP on the quantum of bogus give rise to double calculation of GP on the quantum of bogus purchases. It is therefore found quite rational to follow the spirit of purchases. It is therefore found quite rational to follow the spirit of purchases. It is therefore found quite rational to follow the spirit of the judgment given by Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case and the judgment given by Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case and the judgment given by Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case and hold that the quantum of profit attributable to total bogus purchases hold that the quantum of profit attributable to total bogus purchases hold that the quantum of profit attributable to total bogus purchases of Rs. 27,50,34,816/ of Rs. 27,50,34,816/- may be calculated @ 0.2% of the same. Since, may be calculated @ 0.2% of the same. Since, 0.2% of Rs. 27,50,34,816/ 0.2% of Rs. 27,50,34,816/- works out at Rs. 5,50,070/ works out at Rs. 5,50,070/- only, the appellant is held eligible for getting relief of Rs. 2 appellant is held eligible for getting relief of Rs. 2 appellant is held eligible for getting relief of Rs. 28,32,858/-. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed and the addition Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed and the addition Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed and the addition stands confirmed to the extent of Rs. 5,50,070/ stands confirmed to the extent of Rs. 5,50,070/- only. Therefore, only. Therefore, ground no. 1 & 3 are partly allowed.” ground no. 1 & 3 are partly allowed.” 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of the decision of the Co ion of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee for ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2008 assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No. 1756/Mum/2024. 09 in ITA No. 1756/Mum/2024.

5.1 The Revenue contends that this appeal is maintainable The Revenue contends that this appeal is maintainable The Revenue contends that this appeal is maintainable notwithstanding the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT, as it notwithstanding the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT, as it notwithstanding the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT, as it falls under the exception provided in falls under the exception provided in Para 3.1(h) of Circular No. Para 3.1(h) of Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024. This clause pertains to cases involving . This clause pertains to cases involving organized tax evasion activities based on external intelligence. 5.2 organized tax evasion activities based on external intelligence. 5.2 organized tax evasion activities based on external intelligence. 5.2 Considering the nature of the information received from the Considering the nature of the information received from the Considering the nature of the information received from the Investigation Wing regarding accom Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries, we find merit modation entries, we find merit in the Revenue’s contention that the matter falls within the in the Revenue’s contention that the matter falls within the in the Revenue’s contention that the matter falls within the

Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 1703/MUM/2026

specified exception. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for specified exception. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for specified exception. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. adjudication on merits. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly allowed. Revenue is accordingly allowed.

5.2 Turning to the quantum of addition, the core controversy lies rning to the quantum of addition, the core controversy lies rning to the quantum of addition, the core controversy lies in the estimation of the profit rate. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) in the estimation of the profit rate. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) in the estimation of the profit rate. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the settled position in the assessee’s own case for has relied upon the settled position in the assessee’s own case for has relied upon the settled position in the assessee’s own case for preceding and succeeding years. In the present case, the Co- preceding and succeeding years. In the present case, the Co preceding and succeeding years. In the present case, the Co ordinate Bench has consistently held that a profit rate of 0.2% is ordinate Bench has consistently held that a profit rate of 0.2% is ordinate Bench has consistently held that a profit rate of 0.2% is reasonable to neutralize any tax benefit derived from such reasonable to neutralize any tax benefit derived from such reasonable to neutralize any tax benefit derived from such transactions. This finding has attained finality following the transactions. This finding has attained finality following the transactions. This finding has attained finality following the dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal by the Hon’ble High Court. The dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal by the Hon’ble High Court. dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal by the Hon’ble High Court. Rule of Consistency demands that where facts and circumstances ule of Consistency demands that where facts and circumstances ule of Consistency demands that where facts and circumstances remain identical across assessment years, the Revenue must adopt remain identical across assessment years, the Revenue must adopt remain identical across assessment years, the Revenue must adopt a uniform approach unless there is a material change in the legal or a uniform approach unless there is a material change in the legal or a uniform approach unless there is a material change in the legal or factual landscape. Finding no such departure in the present Finding no such departure in the present Finding no such departure in the present year, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in following the judicial we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in following the judicial we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in following the judicial discipline of the Jurisdictional Tribunal. We find no infirmity or discipline of the Jurisdictional Tribunal. We find no infirmity or discipline of the Jurisdictional Tribunal. We find no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order perversity in the impugned order and accordingly, we uphold the , we uphold the same. The ground No. 1 same. The ground No. 1 of appeal of the Revenue of appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.

Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. 8 ITA No. 1703/MUM/2026

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 20/04/2026. /04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (ANIKESH BANERJEE (OM PRAKASH KANT PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/04/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai