ADYAMA GOLD JEWELLERY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2621/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 June 2026AY 2023-20243 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profit at 5.56% was higher than the assessee's declared GP of 3.15% for the impugned year. Considering expenses for unrecorded sales, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 1.50% on the additional sales.

What were the facts?

During a search action, the Assessing Officer (AO) discovered unrecorded additional sales of ₹10,93,20,028/-. The AO estimated income at 5.6% of these sales, adding ₹61,21,922/- to the assessee's total income.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO's estimation of profit on unrecorded sales was justified, and if so, at what rate, considering the assessee's declared profit margins and the expenses likely incurred for such sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Madhu Malati Ghosh, DR
Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 01.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

ITA No.2621/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Adyama Gold Jewellery DCIT, Central Circle 3(2) 226/C, Rashbehari Avenue, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019 Shantipally Kolkata-700107, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAIFA8963A Assessee by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Madhu Malati Ghosh, DR Date of hearing: 11.05.2026 Date of pronouncement: 01.06.2026

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata- 21(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.09.2025 for the AY 2023-24.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the action of the ld. AO in estimating the income at 5.6% of the alleged additional sales of ₹10,93,20,028/- thereby making additions of ₹61,21,922/- to the total income of the assessee.

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.2023, which was processed u/s 143(1)of the Act. A search action u/s 132 of the act was conducted on

4.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) simply affirmed the order of the ld. AO.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the estimation of profit on additional sales was made by the AO at the rate of 5.56%, the average GP declared by the assessee during A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2024-25 whereas as a matter of fact the GP declared by the assessee during the impugned assessment year is 3.15%. The said addition made by the ld. AO on estimation basis was halso affirmed by the ld. CIT (A) by disregarding and ignoring the contention of the assessee that the net profit of the assessee is almost 1%. We note that during the impugned assessment year the GP on the disclosed turnover is 3.15% and therefore, in any case the estimation if at all to be made cannot be made at more than 3.15%.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 01.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 01.06.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →