BALAJI MARBLES AND TILES PVT LIMITED,KATNI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, UDAIPUR

ITA 304/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 February 2026AY 2017-2018Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)15 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked the jurisdiction to reject the books of account when the Assessing Officer had not proposed to do so and had accepted the assessee's accounting method. The Tribunal also found the addition under Section 69A to be perverse to the facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee's books of account were rejected by the CIT(A) due to discrepancies in sales quantity, low GP ratio, and single invoices for multiple sales. The assessee contested this, providing reconciliations for sales quantity and GP ratio, and explanations for invoicing practices. The CIT(A) also sustained an addition under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) has the power to reject books of account when the AO had accepted them, and whether the addition under Section 69A was justified based on the facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145,Section 69A,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CA (Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Hearing: 18.02.2026

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur–2 [CIT(A)], dated 28.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld CIT erred in law and facts of the case in rejecting the books of account during appellate proceedings.

2.

The Ld CIT Appeals erred in law and facts of the case in enhancing the addition on account of GP addition of Rs 94,24,706/-.

3.

The Ld CIT Appeals erred in law and facts of the case in comparing the GP ratio of assessee as 2.07% whereas the assessee explained

2 that its GP % shall be 25.89% if same its of direct expenses are considered.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 145

All 1,584 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →