PARAMJEET SINGH,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (2), CHANDIGARH, DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2, CHANDIGARH

1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

HYBRID HEARING

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT
AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 204/CHANDI/2025
(िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2018-19)
Shri Paramjeet Singh
(C/o Rajiv Goel & Associates)
SCO No 823-24, Sector 22-A Chandigarh-160022
बनाम/
Vs.
DCIT-Central Circle-2
Sector-17
Chandigarh-160017
˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ASTPS-8898-R
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)
:
(ŮȑथŎ / Respondent)

अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Dhruv Goel(CA) – Ld. AR
ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by :
Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) -Ld. AR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing
: 18-09-2025
घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
: 08/10/2025

आदेश / O R D E R
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19
arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-
3, Gurgaon [CIT(A)] dated 26-09-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 153A of the Act on 23-06-2021. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.82.18
Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

(ITA No.726/Chandi/2022 & Co. No.16/Chandi/2024) the ratio of which would accordingly, apply to the present appeal also.
4. In the assessment order, Ld. AO estimated assessee’s income at 25% on gross receipts of Rs.21.12 Crores. After adjusting the declared income by the assessee in the revised return of income, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.211.29 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A), vide para 6.9 of the impugned order, reduced the estimation to 18% which restricted the impugned addition to Rs.82.18 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us on merits as well as on legal grounds assailing requisite approval u/s 153D.
5. We find the identical issue has been adjudicated by us in the case of Shri Karaj Singh (ITA No.726/Chandi/2022 & Co. No.16/Chandi/2024) as under: -
4. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee-group having nine entities is engaged in mining activities. These nine entities are holding separate mining licenses from state government and are preparing separate books of accounts reporting separate profits.
However, consolidated financial data was being maintained for all these nine entities. The assessee-group was subjected to search action on 05-04-2018 wherein various loose papers as well as accounting data relating to business of assessee as well as other mining entities in physical form and pen-drive was found and seized from the corporate office at #1060, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhari. Considering the same, the assessee-group filed return of income declaring business income. The present assessee declared income of Rs.48.60
Lacs including business income of Rs.28.16 Lacs. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee agreed to offer additional income and filed revised return of income despite its claim that such additional income was never actually realized by them. The Ld. AO enhanced the declaration so made by the assessee to 25%, inter-alia, by considering three comparable entities. However, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the entities selected by Ld. AO were not comparable entities and Ld. CIT(A) worked out NP rate of 17.16% by making various adjustments to the profits on the basis of entries found noted in the seized document. Finally, Ld. CIT(A) upheld application of Net Profit Rate of 18% is impugned before us. The issue before us, thus, is in a narrow compass and related with determination of estimated profit rate earned by the assessee in the background of material seized during search action. At the outset, we concur with the approach of Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting comparable entities of the assessee as well as selected by Ld. AO since the additions are to be based on seized material as found during the search and the same could not be estimated by taking mean profit rate of other entities as disclosed by them in their audited financial statements. It is another fact that the comparable entities as selected by the assessee as well as by Ld. AO are not even otherwise functionally comparable with the functions of the assessee and therefore, the approach of Ld. CIT(A), to that extent, could not be faulted with.
5. The undisputed fact that emerges is that though Ld. CIT(A) has computed NP rate of 17.16% but, finally, it has applied NP rate of 18%. This is in sharp contrast to the fact that for immediately preceding AY 2017-18, Ld. CIT(A) himself estimated substantially lower NP rate of the assessee at 2.28% whereas there is no change in assessee’s business model.
The approach of Ld. CIT(A) is contradictory to the rule of consistency and such vast variation in NP rates of two consecutive years, under identical business conditions, could not be sustained in law. The assessee initially reflected NP rate of 5.85% which has later been substantially enhanced to 14.05% despite the fact that the assessee is having much lower profit as per seized document.
6. It has been stated by Ld. AR that to estimate the NP rates, Ld. CIT(A) has made computations from combined seized material which include Profit & Loss Account as found in the pen-drive in the name of M/s GM & Co. and mining details as noted in the loose papers. However, there is no entity-wise bifurcation of financial data separately for each of the nine entities. The prime grievance of the assessee is that even by considering the seized material as found during the search, the profit rate would only be 1.47% and not 17.16% as computed by Ld. CIT(A). As against this, the assessee has already declared substantially higher profit rate of more than 14% to put a quietus to the issue. As per Ld.
AR, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing actual expenses such as Mining fees paid to Government, VAT paid, new mining point setup expenses as noted in the seized material as well as Labour welfare expenses, environment protection expenses etc. as recorded in regular audited books of accounts. The Ld. AR further contended that when the income is estimated, no such adjustment is to be made for probable disallowances u/s 40A(3) /
40(a)(ia) in terms of decision of Juri ictional High Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Jain
(296 ITR 324) & Aggarwal Engg. Co. (302 ITR 246). Another argument is that there is no unaccounted profit earned on unaccounted sales. The combined regular sales of mining entities were Rs.77.43 Crores which substantially matches with the seized material after making allowance of discount as offered by the assessee group to its customers. On these facts, Ld. AR asserted that the additional profit already offered by the assessee is much in excess of profit emerging from seized materials found during search and impugned addition as sustained in the impugned order deserve to be deleted. On the issue of allowance of discount expenses of Rs.153.55 Crores while estimating business profit at 18%, Ld. AR stated that when Ld. AO assessed profit at 25%, he himself allowed the discount while estimating the profit and thus, the same could not be disputed by revenue. If discount is excluded from the computations, the same would yield unrealistic profit rate of 84% which is not, at all, possible in this line of business.
7. The Ld. AR reiterated legal ground of mechanical approval u/s 153D on the ground that the assessee had submitted voluminous replies during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO forwarded draft assessment order and complete assessment record to Ld. Addl. CIT on 18-06-2021 seeking approval u/s 153D. This approval was granted on the very next day i.e., on 19-06-2021 in a non-speaking manner and without spelling out any reasons or comments on the findings in the draft order or the seized material or findings of investigation wing in appraisal report. Moreover, on the same day,
Ld. Addl. CIT approved draft assessment order in more than 20 other cases of the same group wherein different issues, voluminous submissions and abundant seized material was involved. This would show that Ld. Addl. CIT granted approval u/s 153D in a non-speaking and mechanical manner without due application of mind on the seized material and without considering the submissions of assessee. Such an approval is bad-in-law and would render assessment null and void. Reference has been made to the decision of Chandigarh
Tribunal in the case of SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.140-145/Chd/2024
dated 17-01-2025) wherein, on similar facts, the assessment was quashed and additions were set aside. Similar reliance has been placed on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sushen Mohan Gupta (ITA 2999/Del/2024 dated 20-05-2025) quashing assessment on similar grounds.
8. The Ld. AR has tabulated the comparative figures as per Income Tax Returns, seized material as per orders of lower authorities as under:-

COMPARATIVE FIGURES ASS PER ITR, SEIZED MATERIALS, AO ORDER AND CIT(a) FOR AY 2018-19 IN CASE
OF ALL 9 MINING ENTITIES
No ENTITY
Gross
Mining sales considered by CIT(A) and A.O. on basis of Seized material
(PG 95 of CIT(A)
Order.
Net sales
(after discount) as per seized material (PG
46 of PBK 2)
Mining sales as per audited
P&L
A/C
(
Refer Audited
P&L at Pages
65 to 77)
Profit as per
P&L
A/C
(Refer
Audited P&L at Pages 65
to 77)
Profit offered for tax by assessee before A.O.
(Refer
PG
95
of CIT(A) order)
Profit determined by AO (25% of Gross Mining
Sales
1
Northern
Royalty Co
367,814,720
109,107,210
109,107,210
12,226,154
54,979,869
91,853,680
2
Delhi
Royalty
Co
204,094,825
68,973,800
68,973,800
5,019,766
30,492,528
51,023,706
3
Routes
&
Journeys
203,568,151
59,479,423
59,479,423
3,892,313
30,535,226
50,892,038
4
Development
Strategies
Ind
Pvt Ltd
159,631,779
47,416,917
47,416,917
1575,242
23,944,764
39,907,945
5
Mubarikpur
Royalty Co
633,832,815
215,614,964
219,614,964
10,193,139
95,060,051
158,458,204
6
JSM
Foods
Private Limited
149,368,071
102,942,179
102,942,179
1941,516
20,072,285
37,342,019
7
Karaj Singh
218,260,541
48,147.611
48,147,611
2,816,286
,3,0659,375
54,565,135
8
Paramjeet
Singh
211,296,850
44,819,500
44,819,500
2,628,173
29,814,718
52,824,213
9
Yamuna
Infra developers Pvt
Ltd
160,029,000
77,870,000
77,870,000

40,007,250
Total
2,307,896,752
774,371,604
774,371,604
36,409,558
31,409,598
57,69,74,188

The Ld. AR thus submitted that net mining sales (after discount as per seized material) was Rs.77.43 Crores which matches with the regular mining sales as disclosed by the nine mining entities. The Ld. AR also stated that Ld. CIT(A) did not allow full mining installment of Rs.98.74 Crores as recorded in the books of accounts of nine mining entities. Out of Rs.98.74 Crores, Ld. CIT(A) did not allow installment to the extent of Rs.28.04 Crores as tabulated below: -
COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF MINING INSTALLMENTS AS PER P&L OF MINING ENTITIES & ALLOWED BY CIT(A)
AY 2018-19

ENTITY

Mining Installment debited to P
& L A/C for A Y 18-19 (PG 65-66)
Mining installment allowed by CIT(A)
Expense not allowed by CIT(A)
Northern Royalty Co
10,49,90,403
70,69,50,500
28,04,68,722
Delhi Royalty Co
9,50,95,233

Routes & Journeys
7,771,40,055
Development Strategies Ind Pvt
Ltd
5,19,12,518
Mubarikpur Royalty Co
25,31,78,898
Ganga
Yamuna
Mining
Company
1,36,02,771
JSM Foods Private Limited
11,81,14,281
Karaj Singh
6,14,19,016
Paramjeet Singh
4,83,19,852
Yamuna Infra developers Pvt
Ltd
16,36,45,695
Total
98,74,18,722
70,69,50,000 28,04,68,722

VAT (NET OF CREDITS)
(2,31,20,138) As per seized material refer page 46 of PBK-2, VAT expense of Rs 4.94cr was recorded in debit side while VAT & GST Recovered of Rs. 2.63cr was recorded on credit side. CIT(A) has ignored both the items while computing profit while VAT being actual business expense deserved to be allowed.
NEW POINT EXPENSES
(1,54,45,530) As per seized material at ps46, new point expenses of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- New point investment and Rs. 50,45,300/- New point Jaidhari was recorded as expense. CIT(A) has wrongly considered these expenses as Capital expense on pg 108 of his order whereas these related to expenditure on setting up new mining point and thus was a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure

In above tabulation, Ld. AR demonstrated that by considering the expenses as recorded in the seized material and expenses as debited in the regular books of accounts, the profit rate as earned by all the mining entities would only be 1.47% whereas all these entities have already declared NP rates in the range of 14% to 15% which are substantially higher than this profit.
10. To further support his argument, Ld. AR also tabulated comparative chart of profit computed by CIT(A) for all mining entities and as computed by the assessee for this year as under: -
COMPARITIVE CHART OF PROFIT COMPUTED BY CIT(A) AND AS PER ASSESSEE FOR AY 2018-19
(CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL 9 MINING ENTITIES)
LESS: EXPENSES RECORDED
IN ACTUAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF MINING
ENTITIES BUT ONLY
ALLOWED PARTIALLY BY CIT(A)

MINING INSTALLMENT
(28,04,68,722) As per audited books of the 9 entities, total mining installments expense stood at Rs. 98,74,18,222/- (refer summary above). However, CIT(A) has only allowed expense of Rs.70,69,50,000/-on pg 105 of order. The amount as per books was in line with amounts payable as per mining contracts and-had accrued during the current year and was thus allowable in full.
LESS: EXPENSES RECORDED
IN ACTUAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF MINING
ENTITIES BUT NOT ALLOWED
ENTIRELY BY CIT(A)

CSR EXPENSES
(15,235,000) On page 106, CITA has only allowed depreciation, interest and audit fees as per actual books of accounts. On page 108, CITA observed that CSR expenses and Environment protection expense are not allowable separately as they were part of misc expenses of Rs 6.28cr already allowed as per seized books. However, there is no basis to such assumption when other expenses as per actual books have already been allowed. CSR expense and Environmental protection expense and Labour welfare expense were actually paid by assessee as per books and thus allowable while estimating profits. The figures are as per audited P&L of 9 entities at pg 65-77. ENIVRONMENTAL
PROTECTION EXP
(22,402,500)
LABOUR WELFARE EXP
(5,613,000)
PROFIT AS PER ASSESSEE
3,39,03,343

PROFIT %
(AGAINST SALES OF RS
230,78,96,752/- CONSIDERED
BY CIT(A))
1.47%

PARTICULARS
AS PER CIT(A)
AS PER
ASSESSEE
Remarks
Gross sales receipt as per seized documents
2,307,896,752
2,307,896,752 As per pg 46 of PBK
Rehabilitation charges recovered
766,072,879
766,072,879 As per pg 46 of PBK
Misc. Income
371,552
371,552 As per audited books of accounts of all 9 entities
Total Gross Receipts
3,074,341,183
3,074,341,183
Less: (-)

Discount
1,533,521,146
1,533,521,146 As per pg 46 of PBK
Annual contract money (payable to the Govt, of Haryana for mining rights)
706,950,000
987,418,722 As per audited books of accounts of all 9
entities
Salary account
64,590,764
64,590,764 As per pg 45 of PBK
Wages
40,844,566
40,844,566 As per pg 45 of PBK
Diesel
44,394,113
44,394,113 As per pg 45 of PBK
Diwali expenses
4,370,100
4,370,100 As per pg 45 of PBK
Land compensation
110,803,555
110,803,555 As per pg 45 of PBK less Rs 76 lakhs disallowed by CITA
Land on rent
24,116,384
24,116,384 As per pg 45 of PBK
Other expense
20,000,000
20,000,000 As per pg 45 of PBK
Misc. expenses
62,870,938
62,870,938 As per pg 45 of PBK
Bank charges
373,976
373,976 As per pg 45 of PBK
Crossing contract expenses
840,500
840,500 As per pg 45 of PBK
Generator expenses
1,632,000
1,632,000 As per pg 45 of PBK
Machine rent
26,770,458
26,770,458 As per pg 45 of PBK
Fees and taxes
11,162,300
11,162,300 Including HPSCB Draft and Wildlife forest A/c as per pg 45 of PBK
Insurance account
650,590
650,593 As per pg 45 of PBK
Legal expenses
5,733,000
5,733,000 As per pg 45 of PBK
Printing stationary
1,429,972
1,429,972 As per pg 45 of PBK
Road repair
9,356,588
9,356,588 As per pg 45 of PBK
Depreciation
3,586,000
3,586,000 As per books of account
Interest on loan
3,756,000
3,756,000 As per books of account
Audit fees
400,000
400,000 As per books of account
VAT (net of recovery)
-
23,120,138 As per pg 45 of PBK
NEW POINT EXPENSE

15,445,530 As per pg 45 of PBK
CSREXPENSES
-
15,235,000 As per books of account of all 9 mining entities
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION EXP

22,402,500 As per books of account of all 9 mining entities
LABOUR WELFARE EXP

5,613,000 As per books of account of ail 9 mining entities
Total expenses
2,678,152,950
3,040,437,843
Net Business Profit
396,188,233
33,903,340
PROFIT %
17.16%
1.47%

The Ld. AR thus demonstrated that going by the seized document and regular books, the profit earned by the ground is merely in the range of less than 1.5%.
11. After going through above tabulations, we find substance in the plea / working of Ld.
AR. It could be seen that considering the expenses found recorded in the seized material as well as in the regular books of accounts (allowed partially by Ld. CIT(A) while arriving at profit rate of 17.16%), the aggregate net profit margin for the group as a whole is less than 1.5%. If the material is considered in toto, the NP rate for all the entities work out to be 1.47% which is substantially lower than the declared profit of 14% to 15% by the assessee group in the revised return of income. This being the case, the profit declared in the revised return of income is to be accepted and in our considered opinion, no further addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee. The profit rate declared by the assessee is substantially higher. Pertinently, profit rate of less than 3% has been accepted in immediately preceding year in assessee’s case and such higher estimation of 18%, under identical business conditions, could not be sustained in law. In other orders, we delete the impugned addition of Rs.86.27 Lacs as sustained in the impugned order and allow the corresponding grounds of assessee’s cross-objection. The revenue’s ground of appeal stands dismissed.