Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading Kodha (Bran), filed a return of income. During assessment, the AO added Rs. 48,33,813, representing 25% of alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 1,93,35,254. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC upheld this addition.
Held
The tribunal noted that the issue of bogus purchases by rice millers is sub-judice before the jurisdictional High Court in several similar cases. Therefore, it set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority to await the High Court's decision and then adjudicate de novo.
Key Issues
The key legal issue is the treatment of alleged bogus purchases by the assessee, a rice miller, particularly when similar matters are pending before the jurisdictional High Court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 14.02.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
Brief facts in this case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Kodha (Bran) during the year 2016-17 and had filed return of income declaring income at Rs.5,36,680/-. During assessment proceedings, the A.O made an addition of Rs.48,33,813/-being 25% of the purchases amounting to Rs.1,93,35,254/- by observing that the alleged purchased made by the assessee were bogus purchases.
In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the 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. 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.”
4. 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 benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub- judice before the 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.
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.
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.”
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 4 Mukesh Kumar Goyal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur 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.
6. 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.”
Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, on same parity of reasoning and for maintaining rule of consistency, we 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 the open court on 06th February, 2026.