CIT v. Om Overseas

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 797/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito Ward 1(3) Shree Balaji Processors बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 Tajpur Road, Opp. Central Jail Vs. Ludhiana - 141010 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actfs-8428-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 23-12-2018 Rejecting Books Of The Assessee & Assessing Business Profit Of Rs.12.81 Crores. The Ld. Cit(A) Reversed The Action Of Ld. Ao Against Which The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us With Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. That The Cit(A), Ludhiana Has Erred In Law, In Deleting Addition Of Rs.12,01,85,191/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

…having accepted the explanation given by the appellant for the fall in GP rate and the finding of fact recorded by them having not been shown to be perverse in any manner, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. c. CIT vs. Om Overseas (2009) 315 ITR 185 (P&H HC) in the absence of any illegality or perversity in the finding of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the appellant’s books of accounts were rejected by the AO and the addition was made without pointing out any specific defect in the books of account, impugned addition was rightly deleted and no substantial question of law…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. GAURAV SINGHI, PRAGATIE STEELS,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…ported in 36 taxmann.com 16 (Gujarat) iv). Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Marg Ltd. as reported in 84 taxmann.com 52 (Madras). v). CIT vs. Anil Kumar & Co. in ITA No. 200001 & 200002 vide order dated 25.02.2016 (Karnataka HC) vi). 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas 8 vii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. viii) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays 16. It was further argued that the estimation @ 12.5% of the total purchases in respect of 8 parties totalling to Rs. 10,58,74,302/-, amounting to Rs., 1,32,34,287/- as made by the CIT(A) was bad in…

GAURAV SINGHI, PRAGATIE STEELS, NEAR SAI MANDIR ROAD, NASRALI,GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. ASSESSMENT UNITS NFAC DELHI, JURISDITIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER IT0-WARD-2, MANDI GOBINDGARH, PUNJAB

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…ported in 36 taxmann.com 16 (Gujarat) iv). Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Marg Ltd. as reported in 84 taxmann.com 52 (Madras). v). CIT vs. Anil Kumar & Co. in ITA No. 200001 & 200002 vide order dated 25.02.2016 (Karnataka HC) vi). 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas 8 vii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. viii) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays 16. It was further argued that the estimation @ 12.5% of the total purchases in respect of 8 parties totalling to Rs. 10,58,74,302/-, amounting to Rs., 1,32,34,287/- as made by the CIT(A) was bad in…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

…h)\nc) ACIT vs. Ercon Composites as reported in 49 taxmann.com 489 (Jodhpur\nBench)\nd) ITO vs. Pranab Prakash Dutta in ITA No.1492/Kol/2011 vide order dated\n25.06.2012.\ne) ITO vs. M/s Rajeev & Company in ITA No. 46/Lkw/2012 vide order dated\n17.12.2014\nf) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas\ng) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd.\nh) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports\ni) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays\n“6 The AO has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the account\nbooks maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been main…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

…el Bench) c) ACIT vs. Ercon Composites as reported in 49 taxmann.com 489 (Jodhpur Bench) d) ITO vs. Pranab Prakash Dutta in ITA No 1492/Kol/2011 vide order dated 25.06.2012. e) ITO vs. M/s Rajeev & Company in ITA No. 46/Lkw/2012 vide order dated 17.12.2014 f) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas g) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. h) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports i) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays “6 The AO has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the account books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintain…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f the books of accounts\nhave not been rejected u/s 145(3), no addition could be made in the\ncase of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the number of\njudgments, particularly of Hon'ble Punjab &Haryana High Court in the\ncase of Om Overseas reported in 315 ITR 185 for the said preposition. It\nwas further argued that even the CIT(A) has discussed this issue and\ngiven a finding at page 72 to 73 of his order and applied a gross profit\nrate of 4% on the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,92,51,910/-for which,\nit was argued that the same was not in order as the rates of the\npurchases from the doubtful parties…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f the books of accounts\nhave not been rejected u/s 145(3), no addition could be made in the\ncase of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the number of\njudgments, particularly of Hon'ble Punjab &Haryana High Court in the\ncase of Om Overseas reported in 315 ITR 185 for the said preposition. It\nwas further argued that even the CIT(A) has discussed this issue and\ngiven a finding at page 72 to 73 of his order and applied a gross profit\nrate of 4% on the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,92,51,910/-for which,\nit was argued that the same was not in order as the rates of the\npurchases from the doubtful parties…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f the books of accounts\nhave not been rejected u/s 145(3), no addition could be made in the\ncase of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the number of\njudgments, particularly of Hon'ble Punjab &Haryana High Court in the\ncase of Om Overseas reported in 315 ITR 185 for the said preposition.\nIt was further argued that even the CIT(A) has discussed this issue and\ngiven a finding at page 72 to 73 of his order and applied a gross profit\nrate of 4% on the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,92,51,910/-for which,\nit was argued that the same was not in order as the rates of the\npurchases from the doubtful parties…

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f the books of accounts\nhave not been rejected u/s 145(3), no addition could be made in the\ncase of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the number of\njudgments, particularly of Hon'ble Punjab &Haryana High Court in the\ncase of Om Overseas reported in 315 ITR 185 for the said preposition. It\nwas further argued that even the CIT(A) has discussed this issue and\ngiven a finding at page 72 to 73 of his order and applied a gross profit\nrate of 4% on the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,92,51,910/-for which,\nit was argued that the same was not in order as the rates of the\npurchases from the doubtful parties…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MOOL JI DIAMONDS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…gister. The Counsel for the assessee also vehemently argued that the books of accounts of the assessee have not been rejected u/s 145(3). He relied upon the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ludhiana Steel Rolling Mills, reported in 295 ITR 111, in which, it was held that if the books of accounts have not been rejected, there cannot be any basis of making the addition. The Counsel of the Assessee also relied upon on number of judgments on account of cash deposited during demonetization period as under :- i). PCIT Vs Akshit Kumar in ITA No. 348 of 2019, reported in 197 DTR 121 ii). PCIT…