M/S SARASWATI AGRO INDUSTRIES, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ITO-2(1),BILASPUR, BILASPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 508/RPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 May 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to its file. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to wait for the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on similar issues concerning rice millers and then adjudicate the case afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a rice miller, declared an income of Rs. 1,49,760/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 64,20,000/- on account of alleged bogus purchases from two parties, treating it as unexplained expenditure.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the genuineness of purchases made by the assessee, which was found to be sub-judice before the High Court in similar cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
For Respondent: Shri CH. Rajeswara Reddy, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.05.2026Pronounced: 06.05.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 06.06.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

Brief facts in this case are that the assesse is a rice miller and had filed return of income on 30.09.2016 declaring total income at Rs.1,49,760/-. On the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Raipur, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee has made purchases of Rs.34,20,000/- from M/s.Navdurga Traders and Rs.30,00,000/- from Mr. Deepak Kumar Nanjiyani. Since the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases from the aforesaid parties, the A.O treated the purchases from aforesaid parties as bogus and non-genuine and made addition of Rs.64,20,000/- [Rs.34,20,000/- (+) Rs.30,00,000/-] as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

3.

In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide various cases filed before the said forum. The Ld. Sr. DR had furnished a list as follows:

3 M/s. Saraswati Agro Industries Vs. ITO-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.508/RPR/2025

“1. Keshari Rice Industries (ITA No. 410/RPR/2024 dt. 23.12.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2016-17. 2. Kishore Kumar Panjwani (378/RPR/2024 dt. 08.10.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2014-15. 3. Arvind Kumar Agrawal-(51/RPR/2025 dt. 18.03.2025) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16. 4. Sandeep Agrawal-MA. No. 22/RPR/2019 dated 28.05.2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 16/RPR/2016) for the Asstt. Year 2010-11. 5. Sudhir Kumar Bansal (Filed recently Limitation 11.12.2025) 6. Gurunanak Rice Industries - (ITA 370/RPR/2024 dt. 02.09.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.”

That on similar parameter, the ITAT, DB, Raipur in the cases of 4. M/s. Gindlani Rice Mill Vs. ITO-1(2), Raipur (C.G.), ITA Nos. 813 & 814/RPR/2025, dated 18.03.2026 has held and observed as follows:

“5. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in both these appeals, the issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide various cases filed before the said forum. She had submitted a list of the cases which are as follows: “1. Keshari Rice Industries (ITA No. 410/RPR/2024 dt. 23.12.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2016-17. 2. Kishore Kumar Panjwani (378/RPR/2024 dt. 08.10.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2014-15. 3. Arvind Kumar Agrawal-(51/RPR/2025 dt. 18.03.2025) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16. 4. Sandeep Agrawal-MA. No. 22/RPR/2019 dated 28.05.2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 16/RPR/2016) for the Asstt. Year 2010-11. 5. Sudhir Kumar Bansal (Filed recently Limitation 11.12.2025) 6. Gurunanak Rice Industries - (ITA 370/RPR/2024 dt. 02.09.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.”

4 M/s. Saraswati Agro Industries Vs. ITO-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.508/RPR/2025

6.

That on similar parameter, the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of Vinod Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Raipur, ITA No.630/RPR/2025, A.Y.2016-17, dated 11.12.2025 has held and observed as follows: “2. Parties herein submitted that the issue pertains to the fact that the assessee herein is a rice miller and that as alleged by the Department he had obtained the benefit of bogus purchase bills from various agents and hence, the bogus purchase amount @ Rs.25% was added to the total income of the assessee. In this regard, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this this issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub- judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide various cases filed before the said forum. She had submitted a list of the cases which are as follows: “1. Keshari Rice Industries (ITA No. 410/RPR/2024 dt. 23.12.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2016-17. 2. Kishore Kumar Panjwani (378/RPR/2024 dt. 08.10.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2014-15. 3. Arvind Kumar Agrawal-(51/RPR/2025 dt. 18.03.2025) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16. 4. Sandeep Agrawal-MA. No. 22/RPR/2019 dated 28.05.2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 16/RPR/2016) for the Asstt. Year 2010-11. 5. Sudhir Kumar Bansal (Filed recently Limitation 11.12.2025) 6. Gurunanak Rice Industries - (ITA 370/RPR/2024 dt. 02.09.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.” 3. In this scenario, it would not be appropriate for this Bench to determine the facts and circumstances pertaining to the said additions on issue of procurement of bogus purchase bills by the assessee. At the same time, it would also not serve any logical purpose by keeping the matter pending at this level and therefore, it would be most appropriate that the said matter be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC and that the first appellate authority shall wait for the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforestated matters on the issue stated herein, and thereafter shall adjudicate denovo as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. 4. That even without going into the merits of the matter on consideration of facts that the effective issue in this matter is already subjudice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the

5 M/s. Saraswati Agro Industries Vs. ITO-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.508/RPR/2025

same is therefore, restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, as per the aforestated directions. The order of CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside accordingly. 5. Before parting, it is made clear that this remanding of the matter to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC shall not alter/amend any factual scenario pertaining to the case of the assessee. The facts and circumstances of the case and the point of law has to be decided afresh only after the decision by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as per its order, which shall be the main guideline while deciding this case by the first appellate authority. 6. As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 7. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, on same parity of reasoning and while maintaining rule of consistency as per similar terms, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with similar direction as recorded in ITA No.630/RPR/2025 (supra). 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.813/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes.”

5.

Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, on same parity of reasoning and while maintaining rule of consistency as per similar terms, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with similar direction as recorded in the aforesaid decision (supra).

6 M/s. Saraswati Agro Industries Vs. ITO-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.508/RPR/2025

6.

That as per above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 6th May, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Digitally signed Samiran by Samiran Bera, Sr. Bera, Sr. PS, // True Copy // ITAT, Raipur Senior Private Secretary PS, ITAT, Date: आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. 2026.05.06 Raipur 17:44:49 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →