SHUBHAM,BHAGALPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-1, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 214/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 August 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the GP rates of the earlier four years (average around 26%) and the current year's GP rate (28.34%). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to determine the GP rate at 30% for the stock shortage addition.

What were the facts?

During a survey, a stock variation of Rs.18,15,887/- was found for the assessee. The Assessing Officer applied a GP rate of 35.13% based on the previous assessment year's GP rate, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee was found to be non-cooperative before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the GP rate applied by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) is justified, and if not, what should be the correct GP rate for the stock variation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC BENCH”, PATNA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 06/08/2025Pronounced: 06/08/2025

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Id. CIT(A), Patna-3, dated 30.11.2023 for the assessment year 2019-2020.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Ashwani Kumar, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee and in the course of survey variation in stock to an extent of Rs.18,15,887/- was found. It was the submission that the ld. Assessing Officer had adopted a GP rate @35.13% on the said variation. It was the submission that percentage of 35.13% was on the basis of GP rate disclosed by the assessee for the immediately preceding assessment year being A.Y.2018-2019. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. It was the prayer that the order of the ld. CIT(A) and that of the ld. Assessing Officer should be upheld.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →