PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. SHREE MATANGI WOVEN SACK PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals. The Court noted that the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A), which were confirmed by the learned Tribunal, were based on the appreciation of evidence and material on record. The CIT(A) had provided cogent reasons for restricting the addition on account of estimated Net Profit from 20% to 0.5% of the total turnover. Since the decision of the lower appellate authorities was based on factual appreciation, the High Court found no legal infirmity to interfere. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) is in appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had restricted an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of estimated Net Profit from Rs. 59,31,200/- to Rs. 1,48,280/-. The AO had initially made an addition at 20% of the total turnover. The CIT(A) reduced this to 0.5% of the total turnover and also directed recalculation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the reduced amount of concealed income. The assessment year in question is 2010-11.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the CIT(A)'s order restricting the addition made on account of estimation of Net Profit from Rs. 59,31,200/- to Rs. 1,48,280/-? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. The CIT(A), in its order confirmed by the Tribunal, had appreciated the material on record and given cogent reasons for restricting the addition from 20% to 0.5% of the total turnover. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's contention, as presented through the proposed question of law, is that the ITAT erred in law and facts by upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of estimated Net Profit. The Revenue implicitly argues that the reduction made by the CIT(A) was not justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] As common question of law and facts arise in both these Tax Appeals, they are decided and disposed of by this C/TAXAP/796/2018 JUDGMENT common judgment and order. [2.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in ITA Nos.931 & 997/Ahd for the Assessment Year 2010-11 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the addition made on account of estimation of Net Profit from Rs.59,31,200/- to Rs.1,48,280/-, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following proposed question of law; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the CIT(A)’s order restricting the addition made on account of estimation of Net Profit from Rs.59,31,200/- to Rs.1,48,280/-? [3.0] Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.59,31,200/- and after making the addition on account of estimated Net Profit of the assessee at 20% of the total turnover subsequently the penalty of Rs.7,39,630/- was levied vide penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. On the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee, by giving cogent reasons and on appreciating the material on record, restricted the addition from 20% to 0.5% of the total turnover i.e. Rs.59,31,200/- to Rs.1,48,280/- and directed the learned Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty on the correct C/TAXAP/796/2018 JUDGMENT amount of concealed income. Feeling
aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in quantum appeal restricting the addition made on account of estimation from 20% to 0.5% and the order passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the penalty, revenue preferred Appeals before the learned Tribunal, being ITA Nos.931 & 997/Ahd. By the impugned common judgment and order, learned Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid Appeal. Hence, revenue is before this Court by way of present Tax Appeals. [4.0]
We have heard Mrs Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. On considering the order passed by the learned CIT(A), which came to be confirmed by the learned Tribunal restricting the addition made on account of estimation of 20% to 0.5%, learned CIT(A) has given cogent reasons and on appreciation of material on record has restricted the addition on account of estimated Net Profit of the assessee at 0.5% of the total turnover. The findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) confirmed by the learned Tribunal are on appreciation of evidence, and therefore, it cannot be said that any question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals as proposed by the revenue. Under the circumstances and in view of the above no substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals and both the Tax Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) siji
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026