CIT v. Sunrize Tooling Systems Private Limited

361 ITR 206High Court2014#9025 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunrize Tooling Systems Private Limited authority for?

An assessee discharges its onus to substantiate purchases when it files primary supporting documents, shifting the burden to the Assessing Officer to disprove them, especially when the AO relies solely on VAT authorities' findings.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunrize Tooling Systems Private Limited · 361 ITR 206 · onus to substantiate purchases · primary supporting documents · Assessing Officer · VAT authorities · discharge of onus

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 115BBESection 131Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 133rule 46asection 132(4)section 133(6)section 68section 13section 132section 15companysection 148total incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunrize Tooling Systems Private Limited

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara vs. Kay Bouvet Engineering Limited, Satara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1392/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR and Manish M. Mehta
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

…cted and the statement recorded during the survey are not conclusive piece of evidence by themselves. CO Nos.28 & 33/PUN/2025 15. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunrise Tooling System (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 361 ITR 206 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing Officer made addition to assessee's income on the basis of statement recorded by director of company in course of survey to effect that the said amount represented non-existent transaction, since statement so made did not have any evidentiary va…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara vs. Kay Bouvet Engineering Limited, Satara

ITA 1374/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar &
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

…t that the material collected and the statement recorded during the survey are not conclusive piece of evidence by themselves. 15. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunrise Tooling System (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 361 ITR 206 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing Officer made addition to assessee's income on the basis of statement recorded by director of company in course of survey to effect that the said amount represented non-existent transaction, since statement so made did not have any evidentiary va…

Durga Prasad Sharma, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1038/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur20 Nov 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ghanshyam Meena, JCIT
Section 115BSection 148Section 2Section 69C

…13 (SC), the Supreme Court held that if purchase bills are not backed by actual transactions, they can be disallowed under section 69C despite banking transactions. The appellant also relied on certain decisions including CIT v. Sunrise ToolingSystems (2014) 361 ITR 206 (Del) and Pr. CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 220 (Bom), which are distinguishable on facts. Those cases involved parties where the suppliers were traceable, transactions were verified, and books were not rejected. In contrast, here the supplier is a proven entry operator, and the appellant has not furnished sufficient materia…

ACIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Fauji Exim Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3661/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…non- appearance no adverse inference could be drawn by the authorities against the assessee. The assessment of the assessee as a trader in respect of the transactions was not tenable or justified." 5.6 In the case of CIT Vs Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 206 (Del) Hon'ble Delhi High Court hold that "in any case when sales declared by the assessee have not been doubted, it was not proper on the part of the Assessing Officer to deny the claimed purchases on the basis of which sales were made. In such circumstances, the only option if any was available with the Department was to estimate the income of t…

M/S Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3302/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Harivardhan Steel & ITO – 12(2)(3), Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Room No.226, Shop No.2, 2nd Floor, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Casablanca Bldg., M.K. Road, Vs. A-Wing, Mumbai - 400020 Old Raviraj Complex, Jesal Park, Bhayander (East), Thane – 401 105 PAN: AABCH 6483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 O R…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Hans Raj Dhankar, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2217/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 133Section 139Section 143(3)Section 145Section 244ASection 40

…poses. The Ld. AR further submitted that Revenue though has objected to additional evidence but did not comment any adverse to the effect of evidence. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 206. Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Babu Lal C Vorama Vs. ITO 282 ITR 251, Bombay High Court decision in case of M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises 372 ITR 619,Gujrat High Court’s decision in case of CIT Vs. M. K. Brothers 163 ITR 249, Mather and Platt India Ltd. Vs. CIT 168 ITR 493 (Cal) & M/s Diagnostics Vs. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal). The Ld.…

Musaddilals Jewellers (India) Private Limited., Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2)., Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Musaddilals Jewellers (India) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafcm 4841 H

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Smt. B.K. Vishnu Priya
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…(P) Ltd., 372 ITR 619 6. Mohanlal R. Daga Vs. ITO, 147 Taxman 28 7. CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj) 8. Prakash Chand Natha Vs. CIT, 301 ITR 134 (MP) 9. CIT Vs. MK Brothers, 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) 10. CIT Vs. Sunrise Tooling System P. Ltd., 361 ITR 206 (Guj.) 11. CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Vijay Gupta, 303 ITR 95 (Del.) 12. Ramlila Pravin Shah, ITA No. 5246/Mum/2013. Dt. 05/03/2015. 6. Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A) and submitted that AO has elaborately discussed the issue in his report. 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that AO has di…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Raqunak International Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 6081/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. M.K. Madan (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…are attracted. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have been initiated seperately. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however, deleted the addition relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Sunrize Tooling Systems Private Limited (2014) 361 ITR 206 (Delhi). The Ld. CIT(A) 6 ITA Nos. 5610 & 6081/Del/2014. Raunaq International Ltd.,New Delhi. concluded that all the primary documents supporting the purchase were filed by the assessee and therefore assessee discharged its onus to substantiate the purchases, whereas the Assessing Officer has relied only on the finding of the Maharashtra VAT Au…

M/S. Raunaq International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 5610/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. M.K. Madan (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…are attracted. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have been initiated seperately. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however, deleted the addition relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Sunrize Tooling Systems Private Limited (2014) 361 ITR 206 (Delhi). The Ld. CIT(A) 6 ITA Nos. 5610 & 6081/Del/2014. Raunaq International Ltd.,New Delhi. concluded that all the primary documents supporting the purchase were filed by the assessee and therefore assessee discharged its onus to substantiate the purchases, whereas the Assessing Officer has relied only on the finding of the Maharashtra VAT Au…

M/S. Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2045/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 2045/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 204, Okhla Industrial Estate, Central Circle-5, Phase-Iii, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7255J Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Jain, Ca & Sh. Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-24, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…umption of the cement had also been accepted, therefore, the addition made by the 18 Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Sunrise Tooling Systems P. Ltd. 361 ITR 206 (Del.) " CIT Vs JMD Computers & Communications P. Ltd. 180 Taxman 485 (Del.) " CIT M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 372 ITR 619 (Bom. HC) " CIT Vs M.K. Brothers (1987) 30 Taxman 547 (Guj. HC) " Babulal C. Borana Vs ITO (2005) 282 ITR 251 (Bom.) " Jintendra Harshadkumar Textiles Vs ITO in ITA No. 771/Mum./2011 " ITO Vs Sh. Paresh Arvi…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…copies of cross-examine the said person. The appellant relies upon the following decisions for the proposition that no addition could be made on the basis of the statement given by the third party if the appellant is not given opportunity to cross- examine- 361 ITR 206 (Del) CIT Vs. Sunrise Tooling System P. Ltd. 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers 252 ITR 476 (Guj) DCIT Vs. Adinath Industries Balaji Textiles Vs. DCIT 49 ITD 177 (Mum) 107 Taxmann 126 (ITAT Ahd) ITO Vs. Ghanshyam Steel Traders 122 Taxmann 32 (ITAT Gauhati) DCIT Vs. Brahmaputra Steels P. Ltd. ITO Vs. Agarwal Steel Traders 77 Taxman 95 (Chd)…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2269/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri N.R.Agrawal & Pavan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Shukla
Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(6)Section 143(3)

…to addition on account of purchases on the plea that there was information with the sales tax authority regarding supplier being non- genuine. Reliance was placed by ld. AR on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunrise Tolling Pvt. Ltd., 361 ITR 206, Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Exim, 372 ITR 619 and Babulal Borana, 282 ITR 251 (Bom HC), Gujarat High Court in the case of Atma Prakash Batra, 340 ITR 177 and Sumit P Sheth, 356 ITR 451. It was further contended that no material was found during survey with regard to any bogus purchases nor books of account was rejected, therefore, wh…