M/S SARVESHWAR COMMODITIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the disallowance of 25% was exorbitantly high. The Tribunal restricted the impugned disallowance to 5% of the purchase value, with a rider that this decision would not be treated as a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order confirming the addition of the gross profit component of purchases treated as bogus. The lower authorities had assessed the gross profit at 25% on these purchases.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of 25% on the gross profit component of purchases treated as bogus was justified, or if a lower rate should be applied.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nasik [DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1077256934(1)], in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities herein have treated the assessee’s purchases from M/s Gauri Traders as bogus ones, and, thereafter assessed the same qua the gross profit component only @ 25%; coming to Rs. 14,70,175 in assessment order dated 18.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
M/s Sarveshwar Commodities India P Ltd. 3. That being the case, learned counsel’s first and foremost vehement contention is that the impugned purchases would not have been disallowed at the rate of 25% but having regard to the corresponding book result declared all along. Leaned DR could further not dispute that the impugned disallowance @ 25% is too high i.e. exorbitantly made than in light of the asessee’s corresponding book results.
Be that as it may, it is thus deemed proper in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned disallowance from 25% in question to that @ 5% only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
All other pleadings have rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 22.09.2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
