RADHA BUILDTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate its low GP computation for the earlier assessment years, and the lower authorities had not considered comparable segmental revenues when enhancing the GP. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, directed a lump sum GP estimation at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher, with the rider that it would not be treated as a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a civil construction and real estate development company, was subject to a search where incriminating documents indicated bogus expenses related to sub-contracts and labour. Consequently, the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's books under Section 145(3) and recomputed the Gross Profit (GP) for several assessment years.
What were the issues?
Validity of the Gross Profit (GP) estimation by the lower authorities and determination of the appropriate GP rate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH `Eʹ, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&
Heard together (9 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER Per Bench: These assessee’s nine appeals for Assessment Years 2014- 15 to 2021-22, arise against the CIT(A)-26, New Delhi’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024–25/1091723399(1), 1071723529(1), 1071731183(1), 1071730933(1), 1071730735(1), 1071727190(1), 1071730497(1), 1073086353(1) and 1073010178(1) dated 31.12.2024, 10.02.2025 and 10.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
After vehemently arguing in favour of the assessee’s various legal and factual substantive ground identically pleaded in all these cases, learned counsel states very fairly that he would only wish to press for quantification of it’s GP estimation made in both the lower proceedings.
It is in this factual backdrop that we reject the assessee’s all grounds raised in these nine cases in identical terms except GP estimation made by both the learned lower authorities in succeeding terms.
This assessee/appellant is admittedly a company carrying out civil construction in real estate development etc. Learned departmental authorities appear to have carried out the search in question at it’s premises on 02.03.2022 in connection with M/s Gaur Group of companies etc. There is no dispute between the parties that they came across various incriminating documents and evidence indicating it to have booked bogus expenses representing sub-contracts & labour heads etc. This is what made the learned Assessing Officer to reject the others appeal Radha Buildtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. assessee’s books u/s 145(3) of the Act and recomputed it’s GP as under: Assessment Year Gross Profit Gross Profit declared estimated 2014-15 7.10% 10% 2015-16 6.90% 10% 2016-17 7.00% 10% 2017-18 7.70% 11% 2018-19 8.50% 12% 2019-20 7.80% 11% 2020-21 11.30% 14% 2021-22 13.85% 18% 5.1 This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved in all these assessment years in identical terms.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. Suffice to say, we make it clear that neither the assessee has been able to prove it’s very low gross profits computation at least in former six assessment years upto A.Y. 2019-20 nor the learned lower authorities appear to have even discussed any comparable segmental revenues whilst enhancing the same to @ 10% to 18% (supra). Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the considered view that a lump sum GP estimation @8% or that declared at the rate of assessee’s behest hereinabove; whichever is higher, shall meet the ends of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
No other grounds or arguments have been pressed before us.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026