MAA CHANDI RICE INDUSTRIES, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 185/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 May 2026AY 2015-168 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the issue of bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to wait for the High Court's decision and then adjudicate the case denovo.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a rice miller, was found to have obtained accommodation entries for bogus purchases totaling Rs. 81,08,750/-. The Assessing Officer treated these purchases as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases claimed by the assessee were bogus and constituted unexplained expenditure. The pendency of a similar issue before the Jurisdictional High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 151

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 Respondent: Shri CH. Rajeswara Reddy, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.05.2026Pronounced: 05.05.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3, dated 24.12.2025 for the assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The matters are heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record.

3.

The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the matters pertains to the issue of bogus purchases by rice millers which is the issue sub-judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. We will take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.185/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2015-16 as lead matter.

4.

Brief facts in this case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 19.02.2016 declaring total income at Rs.8,21,840/-. The case was previously assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) on 14.07.2017 determining total income at Rs.19,66,360/-. Subsequently, based on specific and credible information received from the Investigation Wing, Raipur, the case was

3 Maa Chandi Rice Industries Vs. ACIT, CC-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.185 & 186/RPR/2026

reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after obtaining approval u/s. 151 of the Act from the competent authority. The information revealed that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries in the nature of bogus purchases from the concerns viz. i) M/s. Shri Vaishno Devi Exim, Prop. Shri Kapil Kumar Jain: Rs.51,08,750/-; ii) M/s. Maa Sharda Process, Prop. Shri Rakesh Sharma: Rs.30,00,000/-, totaling Rs.81,08,750/-. Both the proprietors of the above concerns had categorically admitted before the ITO (Inv.), Raipur that their concerns were engaged only in providing bogus purchase bills and all the transactions made through the said bank account were not related to any real business activities and amounts received from beneficiaries were returned in cash after rotation through bank accounts.

5.

During assessment proceedings, despite opportunities the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding actual movement of goods from supplier to assessee and from assessee to customer. Accordingly, the A.O treated the total purchases of Rs.81,08,750/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act and assessed income at Rs.1,00,75,110/-.

6.

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

4 Maa Chandi Rice Industries Vs. ACIT, CC-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.185 & 186/RPR/2026

cases filed before the said forum. The Ld. Sr. DR had furnished a list 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.”

That on similar parameter, the ITAT, DB, Raipur in the cases of 7. 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)

5 Maa Chandi Rice Industries Vs. ACIT, CC-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.185 & 186/RPR/2026

6.

Gurunanak Rice Industries - (ITA 370/RPR/2024 dt. 02.09.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.” 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.

6 Maa Chandi Rice Industries Vs. ACIT, CC-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.185 & 186/RPR/2026

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 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.”

8.

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) and remand the matter back to its file with similar direction as recorded in the aforesaid decision (supra).

9.

That as per above terms, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.185/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes.

7 Maa Chandi Rice Industries Vs. ACIT, CC-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.185 & 186/RPR/2026

ITA No.186/RPR/2026 A.Y.2016-17 10. Since facts and issues involved in the captioned appeal remains the same as were there before us in ITA No.185/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2015-16, therefore, our decision rendered in ITA No.185/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2015-16 shall mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No.186/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2016-17.

11.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.186/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2016-17 is allowed for statistical purposes.

12.

To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per afore-stated terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 05th 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.

8 Maa Chandi Rice Industries Vs. ACIT, CC-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.185 & 186/RPR/2026

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Samiran Bera, Sr. // True Copy // PS, ITAT, Raipur Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Digitally signed by Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.05.05 17:53:26 +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 →