DCIT 13(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. UNITED ASPHALTERS P. LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal corrected a para in its previous order to clarify that the net profit of 12.50% should be applied to purchases, as affirmed by the CIT(A). The correction aimed to remove ambiguity regarding the deduction of declared GP.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai issued a corrigendum to its earlier order dated 06/07/2017 concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The corrigendum was issued to rectify a typographical error in paragraph 2.12 of the original order.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the rectification of a typographical error in a previous ITAT order regarding the calculation of estimated profit on purchases.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Corrigendum We find that the Tribunal disposed off the aforesaid appeal of the Revenue vide order dated 06/07/2017. During hearing of the remaining appeals of difference Assessment Years including Assessment Years 2009-10, 2 M/s. United Asphalters P. Ltd. (appeal of the assessee), the ld. counsel for the assessee cited order of the Tribunal dated 06/07/2017, wherein an inadvertent typographical error was noticed. The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Dharmesh Shah as well as Shri Rajat Mittal, ld. DR, agreed that the mistake may be rectified. Both were heard. After hearing both sides, it was found that due to inadvertent typographical error, some mistake occurred in the order in para 2.12 (page-16 of the order), which is reproduced hereunder:- “2.12. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, admittedly, in such type of cases, there is no option but to estimate the profit which depends upon the subjective approach of an individual. However, keeping in view the principle of judicial discipline, ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases (discussed hereinabove), to plug the leakage of revenue, we deem it appropriate to adopt the net profit of 12.50% of the purchases made by the assessee minus the GP, already declared/ shown by the assessee. So far as, the case relied upon by Ld. DR in his written submissions is concerned, that is different on fact as the present assessee is a trader in goods, thus, we affirm the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).”
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhat Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026
- Siddharth Barai (Prop- Siddharth Design Studio) vs. The Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, Balangir RangeOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Shashibhusan Moharana vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, DhenkanalOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Paramount Tea Marketing PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 OrsGauhati · 4 Nov 2026
- Md. Junaid vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026