Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s. Jai Shankar Food and Wood Pvt. Ltd., was found to have received accommodation entries in the guise of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 45,79,000/-. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, making an addition under Section 69C, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals).
Held
The tribunal noted that the issue of bogus purchases by rice millers was sub-judice before the jurisdictional High Court in several similar cases. Therefore, following a consistent approach, the tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to await the High Court's decision before fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
The key legal issue is the addition made for unexplained bogus purchases under Section 69C, particularly concerning rice millers, which is pending before the jurisdictional High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 144B, Section 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 10.11.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed. The matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record.
The brief facts in this case are that as per the information available with the Department, the assessee had received accommodation entries in guise of bogus purchases of Rs.45,79,000/-. Therefore, proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.07.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 14.02.2023 declaring total income at Rs.1,39,590/-. Assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 20.05.2023 wherein income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.47,18,590/- by making an addition of Rs.45,79,000/- on account of unexplained purchases u/s. 69C
The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more “Res-Integra” for the fact that it involves the issue of rice miller and bogus purchases which are sub-judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. She had submitted a list of the cases which are pending before the Hon’ble High Court as follows:- “1. Keshari Rice Industries (ITA No. 410/RPR/2024 dt. 23.12.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2016-17. 2. Kishore Kumar Panjwani (378/RPR/2024 dt. 08.10.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2014-15. 3. Arvind Kumar Agrawal-(51/RPR/2025 dt. 18.03.2025) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16. 4. Sandeep Agrawal-MA. No. 22/RPR/2019 dated 28.05.2024 (Arising out of for the Asstt. Year 2010-11.
5. Sudhir Kumar Bansal (Filed recently Limitation 11.12.2025) 6. Gurunanak Rice Industries - (ITA 370/RPR/2024 dt. 02.09.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.”
5. That on similar parameter, the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of Vinod Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Raipur, A.Y.2016-17, dated 11.12.2025 has held and observed as follows:
“2. Parties herein submitted that the issue pertains to the fact that the assessee herein is a rice miller and that as alleged by the Department he had obtained the benefit of bogus purchase bills from various agents and hence, the bogus purchase amount @ Rs.25% was added to the total income of the assessee. In this regard, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this this issue of obtaining
4 M/s. Jai Shankar Food and Wood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide various cases filed before the said forum. She had submitted a list of the cases which are as follows: “1. Keshari Rice Industries (ITA No. 410/RPR/2024 dt. 23.12.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2016-17.
Kishore Kumar Panjwani (378/RPR/2024 dt. 08.10.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2014-15.
3. Arvind Kumar Agrawal-(51/RPR/2025 dt. 18.03.2025) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.
4. Sandeep Agrawal-MA. No. 22/RPR/2019 dated 28.05.2024 (Arising out of for the Asstt. Year 2010-11.
Sudhir Kumar Bansal (Filed recently Limitation 11.12.2025) 6. Gurunanak Rice Industries - (ITA 370/RPR/2024 dt. 02.09.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.”
3. In this scenario, it would not be appropriate for this Bench to determine the facts and circumstances pertaining to the said additions on issue of procurement of bogus purchase bills by the assessee. At the same time, it would also not serve any logical purpose by keeping the matter pending at this level and therefore, it would be most appropriate that the said matter be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC and that the first appellate authority shall wait for the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforestated matters on the issue stated herein, and thereafter shall adjudicate denovo as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice.
4. That even without going into the merits of the matter on consideration of facts that the effective issue in this matter is already subjudice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the same is therefore, restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, as per the aforestated directions. The order of CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside accordingly.
5. Before parting, it is made clear that this remanding of the matter to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC shall not alter/amend any factual scenario pertaining to the case of the assessee. The facts and circumstances of the case and the point of law has to be decided afresh only after the decision by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as per its order, which shall be the main guideline while deciding this case by the first appellate authority.
As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”
6. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, on same parity of reasoning and while maintaining rule of consistency as per similar terms, I set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with similar direction as recorded in (supra).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 05th day of March, 2026.