M/S PARKER BULLION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 24/AHD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 December 2025AY 2017-1816 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had noted that the sales transactions were duly supported by sales invoices, delivery challans, bank statements, and contra accounts of the sale parties. Advance payments were received through RTGS, with no cash payments. Purchases were made through banks, and the subsequent sales were properly recorded in the stock register. The AO had treated sales of Rs. 140.54 crore as bogus based on a forensic report, misinterpreting 'CHCLDAT' as 'challan date' when it was 'cheque clearing date', and 'E-DATE' as 'entry date' when it was 'view date'. The AO, in his remand report, accepted the contra accounts furnished for sale transactions of Rs. 140.54 crore as in order. The CIT(A) concluded that all sales entries were recorded in books, backed by invoices and delivery challans, with advance payments received through bank RTGS. Purchases were from banks, and deliveries to buyers were accompanied by invoices and challans. The CIT(A) found no need for backdated entries as sales were completed upon payment and delivery. Contra accounts submitted by the assessee were found to be in order by the AO during remand proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO, and the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The case involves cross-appeals by the assessee, M/s. Parker Bullion Pvt. Ltd., and the Revenue against an order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. A search and survey operation was conducted on the assessee on January 24, 2017. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the assessee's business of bullion trading and the government's demonetization scheme of November 8, 2016, aimed at unearthing black money. The AO observed reports of jewellers selling gold at inflated rates for demonetized currency and other methods of money laundering. Investigations revealed large cash deposits in Axis Bank accounts, allegedly by a group of persons using 'benami' accounts managed by entry operators. Statements from entry operators and account holders indicated these accounts were used for depositing demonetized currency, which was then transferred via RTGS/NEFT to beneficiaries. Specifically, accounts of M/s. Raj Enterprise and M/s. Shiv Traders, managed by Afzal Savjani and Tejas Desai, were identified. These operators stated they received cash from Shri Sanjay M. Soni and deposited it in M/s. Raj Enterprise's account, subsequently transferring Rs. 11,61,95,535/- to Parker Bullion Pvt. Ltd. The proprietor of M/s. Raj Enterprise confirmed his account was used by Tejas C. Desai for depositing specified bank notes and transferring funds to the assessee, stating there were no actual business transactions and he was a non-filer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by confirming the addition of Rs. 11,61,95,535/- on account of sales of gold bullion to M/s Raj Enterprise as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the assessee's contention that these were genuine sales supported by RTGS payments and no creditworthiness was required for sale of goods. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by confirming the addition under Section 68 of Rs. 11,61,95,535/- based on a forensic report, when no such allegation regarding sales to M/s. Raj Enterprise was present in the forensic report. 3. Whether the AO erred in treating sale proceeds of Rs. 11,61,95,535/- as unexplained income under Section 68 and taxing it under Section 115BBE, when these receipts were actual sale proceeds from the sale of gold and silver. Assessee's Contentions: - The sales to M/s. Raj Enterprise were genuine and supported by RTGS payments received through Axis Bank. Creditworthiness is not required for sale of goods. (Ground 1 & 2) - The forensic report did not contain allegations regarding sales to M/s. Raj Enterprise, and the addition based on it was erroneous. (Ground 3) - The receipts were sale proceeds against genuine sales of gold and silver, not unexplained income. (Ground 4) - The AO misinterpreted forensic data like 'CHCLDAT' (cheque clearing date) and 'EDATE' (view date), and did not provide adequate opportunity to produce evidence. (Assessee's submissions during CIT(A) proceedings) - The assessee relied on audio recordings of Shri Sanjay M. Soni booking purchases for M/s. Raj Enterprise, RTGS transfer messages, and delivery of gold to Shri Soni or his authorized persons. (Assessee's submissions during CIT(A) proceedings) Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding these grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 133A,Section 131,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &, Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR
Hearing: 17/09/2025Pronounced: 15/12/2025

आदेश की )ितिलिप अ*ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ+ / The Appellant ),थ+ / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु- / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु- अपील 4. ( ) / The CIT(A)- 12, Ahmedabad 5. िवभागीय )ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स,ािपत )ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad

Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with file) : 1. 9.12.2025 : 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 9.12.2025/10.12.25 Dictating Member. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 3. : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 15.12.25 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 15.12.25 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →