LILAVANTIBEN GORDHANBHAI PADARIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 372/RJT/2023Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 September 2025AY 2013-14Bench: the Sales Tax Authority of Rs. 10,04,94,553/- and net figure recorded in the Books of Account of Rs. 11,16,07,749/-, the difference of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- is consider as per income escaped from assessment for AY 2013-14. Page 2 Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the alleged difference of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- was indeed due to the inclusion of excise duty in the turnover reported to the sales-tax (VAT) department, which was not part of the turnover as per the audited financial statements. The assessee had provided a reconciliation of sales and turnover figures, which clearly explained this difference.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in trading iron scrap, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the reassessment order. The AO had reopened the assessment based on a difference between sales reported to the sales tax authority and sales in the books of account, amounting to Rs. 1,11,13,196/-. The assessee contended this difference was due to excise duty and VAT included in the turnover reported to the sales tax authority but excluded from the audited financial statements.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- as escaped income was justified, given the assessee's explanation that the difference arose from the inclusion of excise duty and other taxes in sales reported to the VAT authority but not in the audited accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 139,Section 44AB,Section 2(43),Section 2(24)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH,

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/06/2025Pronounced: 19/09/2025

PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 09.09.2023, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 04.12.2017. 2. Grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

1.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre,

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →