MIR SINGH,BAHADURGARH V. ITO WARD 3 ROHTAK, ROHTAK

ITA 3084/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mir Singh, the appellant, contesting several additions made to his income by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-3, Rohtak, for the assessment year 2016-17. The additions included discrepancies in the gross profit ratio, an unsecured loan, and various operational expenses. The CIT(A) upheld most of these additions, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the evidence and arguments presented, including the appellant's compliance with procedural requirements and the substantive evidence regarding the financial transactions in question.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793337 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2025
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL; SIFATPREET
• Keywords: Business income; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 3084/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2016-17 MIR SINGH, vs. ITO, WARD-3, ROHTAK H.NO. 4, WARD-15 BAHADURGARH H.O.S., JHAJJAR-124507 HARYANA (PAN: DCRPS4039B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashok Kumar Goyal, CA & Sh. Sifatpreet Singh, CA (Through V.C.) Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Addl/JCIT(A), Thane, for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following effective grounds:- i) That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,08,245/- with respect to variation proposed in gross profit ratio as it is based on conjectures and surmises. ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as the same is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e iii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on account of administrative / operational expenses on account of rebate of sale and rent of L-13, amounting to Rs. 1,64,219/- and Rs. 1,66,340/- respectively being arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be quashed. iv) That the arbitrary adhoc disallowance of expenses to the tune of Rs. 45,882/- is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed ITR for the AY 2016-17 showing business income of Rs. 8,62,610/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. On account of non-compliance on the part of the assessee, the AO completed the assessment by assessing the total income at Rs. 31,98,300 by way of making various additions viz. GP addition of Rs. 8,08,245/-; unsecured loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-; disallowance of expense of Rs. 3,77,447/- and adhoc disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. As regards, addition of Rs. 8,08,245/- calculating GP @4% is concerned, I note that during the appellate proceedings, in respect of difference in purchases, the assessee submits that the purchases had been inadvertently shown at a lower value of INR 503 lacs against the purchases reflected in Form 26AS amounting to Rs. INR 642 lacs. The balance purchases have been missed from being reflected in the trading account and has not been considered in closing stock as well for the year under consideration. As per the returned income, the Assessee GP rate is 0.89% which is at part with the industry rates for similar trading concerns. Printed from counselvise.com 3 | P a g e Therefore, the gross profit rate of 4% as mentioned in the impugned order cannot be applied in the instant case. Ld. CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO, wherein the AO submitted that the issue had already been discussed during the assessment proceedings by the AO and the assessee himself admitted that balance purchases had been missed from being reflected int eh trading account and has not been considered in closing stock as well as for the year under consideration. Hence, the veracity of results, reflected in trading account furnished by the appellant is not reliable. Further, the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to justify his claim that the trading results shown by him are correct. The gross profit (GP) rate reported by the assessee is significantly lower than what is typically observed in this particular industry. This discrepancy raises concerns about he accuracy and reliability of he financial statements presented. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly sustained the addition of Rs. 8,08,245/- which does not need in any interference on my part, hence, I affirm the same and reject the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee. 4. As regards, addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan received by the assesseee is concerned, I note that during the appellate proceedings, assessee submitted that the unsecured loan of Rs. 10 lacs were taken from Mr. Risal Singh who is a retired Govt. Employee and the loan was interest free loan was taken for business purposes. Both receipts and payments were taken through banking channels and assessee submitted copy of PAN and copy of bank pass book and the details of receipt and repayment of loan was also submitted. Ld. CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO, wherein the AO remain silent on this issue. I note that Printed from counselvise.com 4 | P a g e it is well settled law that on the instant the onus lies on the assessee to prove the identity of the lender, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction. Assessee has neither submitted any copy of his bank statement when the loan was received by him nor has he submitted the bank copy of bank statement of the lender and only submitting the PAN card of lender and his own bank pass book coy does not prove the creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction. Hence, the assessee is not justified in discharging the onus lies upon him, thus, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly sustained the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- which does not need in any interference on my part, hence, I affirm the same and reject the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee. 5. As regards, addition on account of administrative / operational expenses on account of rebate of sale and rent of L-13, amounting to Rs. 1,64,219/- and Rs. 1,66,340/- respectively are concerned, I note that rebate and discount on sale amounting to Rs. 1,64,219/- are key policies of marketing, promoting sales, and essentials to attract customers, which plays important role to clear out the old items from the stock. Thus, the assessee has got rebate of Rs. 26 lacs from the vendors and shown them as income in the profit and loss account during the relevant period and rent of L-13 of Rs. 1,66,340/- is rent paid for the outlet which was taken on rent, which is the essential requirement to run the business of sales and purchase of any items, copy of rent receipts establishes the genuineness of the same. In view of the aforesaid, I delete both the aforesaid the additions in dispute and decided the issue in hand in favour of the assessee by allowing the ground no. 3. Printed from counselvise.com 5 | P a g e 6. As regards, adhoc addition of Rs. 45,882/- is concerned, it is noted that Ld. CIT(A) considering the nature of business, restricted the addition to 5% of Rs, 9,17,631/- which works out Rs. 45,882/- and gave a relief of Rs. 1,04,118/-. However, the expenses are for business purposes only and does not include any expenditure of personal nature, thus, in my considered opinion the adhoc addition of Rs. 45,882/- should also be allowed. I hold and direct accordingly. Thus, the ground no. 4 is allowed in favour of the assessee. 7. In the result, the instant assesseee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.09.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT Date: 24.09.2025 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench Printed from counselvise.com "