RADHA BUILDTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 695/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2020-21Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to justify its very low gross profit computations for the initial assessment years and the lower authorities did not discuss comparable segmental revenues. The Tribunal decided to allow a lump sum GP estimation of 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher, for justice, but stipulated it should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in civil construction and real estate development, had its books rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act due to the discovery of bogus expenses during a search. The Assessing Officer recomputed the Gross Profit (GP) for assessment years 2014-15 to 2021-22, increasing it from declared rates to estimated rates between 10% and 18%.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment of Gross Profit based on estimated rates was justified when the assessee failed to substantiate its declared low profits and lower authorities did not consider comparable revenues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Appellant: CA &
For Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Hearing: 15.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

Heard together (9 matters)

ITA No. 949/Del/2025
ITA No. 951/Del/2025
ITA No. 1132/Del/2025
ITA No. 1137/Del/2025
ITA No. 1935/Del/2025
ITA No. 1936/Del/2025
ITA No. 694/Del/2025
ITA No. 695/Del/2025
ITA No. 1085/Del/2025

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.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

No other grounds or arguments have been pressed before us.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →