GURVINDER PAL SINGH GANDHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 54(5),NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that as long as the assessee's book results filed under presumptive taxation under Section 44AD are not rejected, the addition for enhancing gross profit is not sustainable. This would defeat the purpose of the presumptive taxation scheme.
What were the facts?
The lower authorities added Rs. 9,89,344/- to the assessee's income by enhancing the profit on sale of gold items from 12.59% to 16.66% on cash sales deposited in the bank. This was done in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition for enhancing gross profit is sustainable when the assessee is offering income under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD and the books of account have not been rejected.
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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060392580(1) dated 01.02.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
A perusal of the case file reveals that both the learned lower authorities have added an amount of Rs.9,89,344/- in assessee’s hands after enhancing his profits on sale of gold items declared @ 12.59% on his business receipt of Rs.81,40,477/- to that @16.66% of the cash sales deposited in the bank amounting to RS.59,38,441/- in the relevant previous years.
Gurvinder Pal Singh Gandhi 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue vehement contentions coming from learned departmental representative’s side. I am of the considered view that till that time the assessee’s book result filed under presumptive taxation u/s 44AD are not rejected in principle, the impugned addition of enhancement of it’s gross profit would not be sustainable in law as it would defeat the purpose of the said scheme itself. I accordingly accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in very terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02/01/2025.
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026