CIT vs. AMAR UJALA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The CIT(A) and the Tribunal confirmed that the Assessing Officer had not made a case for addition. They found the issue to be one of fact, related to the accounting procedure for sales returns and what constitutes an appropriate percentage.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee's income based on a perceived high percentage of sales returns, comparing it to previous years and a benchmark. The assessee, a newspaper publisher, had varying sales return percentages across its branches.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in making an addition based on sales return percentages without sufficient grounds. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the Tribunal's factual determination.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 362/2012 . CIT ..... Appellant . Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate . versus . . . AMAR UJALA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through: . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 23.05.2012 . . . This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal?, for short) dated 18.11.2011 passed in the case of M/s. Amar Ujala Publication Ltd. for the assessment year 2005-06. . The assessee is a company engaged in the publication of newspaper Amar Ujala at various places including Agra. The publication units are situated at several places in U.P. In respect of the assessment year under appeal, the assessee declared gross profit rate at 20.62% and net profit rate of 2.80% from the business of publishing the newspaper. The Assessing Officer compared the total receipts, gross profit rate and net profit rate for the assessment year under appeal with the corresponding figures for the earlier two assessment years and concluded that there was a decline in the net profit rate which called for further probe. Thereafter the Assessing Officer took up sales returns for examination and found that unit-wise, the sales returns of newspapers were as follows: . . . ITA 362/2012 Page 1 of 3 . . . Branch . Amount of sales . Sale Return (S.R.) . age . (S.R./Sales x100) . Agra . 104327125/- . 3119754/- . 2.99% . Meerut . 87862208/- . 3325605/- . 3.78% . Bareilly . 75951264/- . 2446986/- . 3.22% . Jhansi . 12600740/- . 427129/- . 3.39% . Allahabad . 43914760/- . 2844723/- . 6.48% . Varanasi . 49331790/- . 3603080/- . 7.30% . Muradabad . 40469932/- . 1223873/- . 3.02% . Noida . 80969490/- . 5039219/- . 6.22% . Kanpur . 59964823/- . 1406659/- . 2.34% . Dehradun . 67869022/- . 3302809/- . 4.87% . Panchkula/ Chandigarh . 57282358/- . 1909256/- . 3.33% . Jalandhar . 44818160/- . 5010811/- . 11.18% . Haldwani/Nanital . 41048389/- . 1131280/- . 2.75% . . . On noticing that the sales return percentage varied between 2.34% and 11.18%, the Assessing Officer held that this was on the higher side. He also noted that for the earlier assessment year 2003-04, the sales return of 4% was held to be reasonable. He accordingly adopted the sales returns of 4.5% giving some allowance for the improved sales for the year under appeal and calculated the disallowance at Rs.60,32,938/-. . In appeal, the CIT(A) examined the matter in great detail including the entire accounting process involved right from the issue of newspapers to the agents till they were returned at the gate of the publishing unit and incorporated in the accounts with appropriate figures and held that there was no case made out by the Assessing Officer for making the addition. This order of CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. . . . . . . . ITA 362/2012 Page 2 of 3 . . . We find that the entire issue is essentially one of fact, where the accounting procedure relating to the sales returns and what would be the appropriate percentage of sales returns that can be allowed has been discussed threadbare by the CIT(A) whose order has been confirmed by the Tribunal. A similar, addition has been deleted by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 2003-04 and it is stated that no appeal has been filed by the revenue against the said order. The issue being a question of fact, we do not think any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed without there being any order as to costs. . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . . . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J . . . . . MAY23, 2012 . rd . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 362/2012 Page 3 of 3 . . . . . . . $ 20 .
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026