The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s Auctus Pharma Pvt. Ltd.,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, following precedent, remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer is to verify the genuineness of transactions and reassess based on a 25% figure.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed a Tribunal order that had deleted trading additions sustained by the CIT(A). The core issue involved bogus purchases and rejection of the assessee's books of accounts.
What were the issues?
Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting trading additions despite upholding findings of bogus purchases and rejection of books of accounts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT460 citing316 ITR 274 · 2009 · HC · Read judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 505 / 2011 C I T Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Shanti Kumar Chordia ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay for Mr. Anuroop Singhi For respondent: None present. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 31/01/2017 1. By way of this appeal the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Department and confirmed the order of CIT(A). 2. This court while admitting the matter on 30.7.2012, has framed the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in not only upholding the deletion of trading addition made by CIT (A), but even deleting the trading addition of Rs. 26,63,734/- sustained by the CIT (A) without giving any reason worth the name, inspite of upholding the finding of CIT (A) as well as the Assessing Officer with regard to bogus purchases made by the assessee and consequent rejection of books of accounts?
(2 of 3) [ITA-505/2011] 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in on the one hand upholding the finding of bogus purchases made by the assessee and consequent rejection of books of accounts and on the other hand, deleting the trading addition of Rs. 1,70,18,605/- without giving any finding for the same? 3. Though served none appeared for the respondent. 4. Counsel for the appellant contended that issue is now squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. M/s Gems Paradise, Income Tax Appeal No. 201/2010, decided on 2.11.2016 wherein in paragraph 3 and 4, it has been held as under: 3. Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 4. We remit back the case to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix. The authority will accept the law but the transaction whether it is genuine or not will be verified by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the aforesaid three judgments. The issues are answered accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 5. In view of the above, the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to reassess the matter on the basis of 25% as held in the earlier cases.
(3 of 3) [ITA-505/2011] 6. Both the issues are decided in favour of the Department against the assessee. The appeal stands disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. Bm gandhi/100
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026