TRADE KINGS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, CIVIC CENTER, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee's purchases were explained and the business operated in an unorganized sector with cash payments. Therefore, the assessment rate was reduced from 20% to 5% on the turnover, with the condition that this would not set a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2018-19. The lower authorities assessed the assessee at 20% on sales turnover of Rs. 1,01,15,230/- in the waste paper recycle business. The assessee did not press the ground challenging the validity of the reopening of assessment.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the rate of profit to be applied to the assessee's turnover in the waste paper recycling business. The validity of the assessment reopening was also an issue, but the assessee did not press it.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066023644(1) dated 25.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Leaned counsel representing assessee does not press for its ground challenging validity of the reopening of assessment.
Next comes the sole substantive issue on merits between the parties wherein the learned lower authorities have assessed the assessee at the rate of 20% on sales turnover of Rs.1,01,15,230/-, in waste paper recycle business. Learned departmental representative could hardly rebut the clinching facts, inter alia, emerging from the case file that neither the purchases made by the assessee remained unexplained, nor the nature of the primary business activity which has been carried on in unorganized sector involving most of the small-time traders insisting for cash payment only. There are also no concrete comparable instances discussed in the lower orders.
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 →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026