MUKESH KUMAR GOYAL, NEORA,RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 195/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mukesh Kumar Goyal, the proprietor of Maa Sharda Trading Co., who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. The Income Tax Officer had added a substantial amount to Goyal's income, alleging that 25% of his purchases were bogus. This issue, common among rice millers, is currently under judicial consideration by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The ITAT decided to remand the case back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, awaiting the High Court's decision, to ensure a fair and just resolution in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833608 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Keshari Rice Industries (ITA No. 410/RPR/2024 dt. 23.12.2024), Kishore Kumar Panjwani (378/RPR/2024 dt. 08.10.2024), Arvind Kumar Agrawal-(51/RPR/2025 dt. 18.03.2025), Sandeep Agrawal-MA. No. 22/RPR/2019 dated 28.05.2024, Sudhir Kumar Bansal (Filed recently Limitation 11.12.2025), Gurunanak Rice Industries - (ITA 370/RPR/2024 dt. 02.09.2024)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Rule of consistency; Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Bogus

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.195/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mukesh Kumar Goyal Prop. of M/s. Maa Sharda Trading Co. Near Shyam Mandir, Bazar para, Neora, Raipur 493 114 (C.G.) PAN: AHAPG4292R ........अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Mukesh Kumar Goyal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 195/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 14.02.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. Brief facts in this case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Kodha (Bran) during the year 2016-17 and had filed return of income declaring income at Rs.5,36,680/-. During assessment proceedings, the A.O made an addition of Rs.48,33,813/-being 25% of the purchases amounting to Rs.1,93,35,254/- by observing that the alleged purchased made by the assessee were bogus purchases. 3. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide various cases filed before the said forum. She had submitted a list of the cases which are as follows: “1. Keshari Rice Industries (ITA No. 410/RPR/2024 dt. 23.12.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2016-17. 2. Kishore Kumar Panjwani (378/RPR/2024 dt. 08.10.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2014-15. 3. Arvind Kumar Agrawal-(51/RPR/2025 dt. 18.03.2025) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16. Printed from counselvise.com 3 Mukesh Kumar Goyal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 195/RPR/2025 4. Sandeep Agrawal-MA. No. 22/RPR/2019 dated 28.05.2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 16/RPR/2016) for the Asstt. Year 2010-11. 5. Sudhir Kumar Bansal (Filed recently Limitation 11.12.2025) 6. Gurunanak Rice Industries - (ITA 370/RPR/2024 dt. 02.09.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.” 4. That on similar parameter, the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of Vinod Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Raipur, ITA No.630/RPR/2025, A.Y.2016-17, dated 11.12.2025 has held and observed as follows: “2. Parties herein submitted that the issue pertains to the fact that the assessee herein is a rice miller and that as alleged by the Department he had obtained the benefit of bogus purchase bills from various agents and hence, the bogus purchase amount @ Rs.25% was added to the total income of the assessee. In this regard, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this this issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub- judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide various cases filed before the said forum. She had submitted a list of the cases which are as follows: “1. Keshari Rice Industries (ITA No. 410/RPR/2024 dt. 23.12.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2016-17. 2. Kishore Kumar Panjwani (378/RPR/2024 dt. 08.10.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2014-15. 3. Arvind Kumar Agrawal-(51/RPR/2025 dt. 18.03.2025) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16. 4. Sandeep Agrawal-MA. No. 22/RPR/2019 dated 28.05.2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 16/RPR/2016) for the Asstt. Year 2010-11. 5. Sudhir Kumar Bansal (Filed recently Limitation 11.12.2025) 6. Gurunanak Rice Industries - (ITA 370/RPR/2024 dt. 02.09.2024) for the Asstt. Year 2015-16.” 3. In this scenario, it would not be appropriate for this Bench to determine the facts and circumstances pertaining to the said additions on issue of procurement of bogus purchase bills by the Printed from counselvise.com 4 Mukesh Kumar Goyal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 195/RPR/2025 assessee. At the same time, it would also not serve any logical purpose by keeping the matter pending at this level and therefore, it would be most appropriate that the said matter be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC and that the first appellate authority shall wait for the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforestated matters on the issue stated herein, and thereafter shall adjudicate denovo as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. 4. That even without going into the merits of the matter on consideration of facts that the effective issue in this matter is already subjudice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the same is therefore, restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, as per the aforestated directions. The order of CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside accordingly. 5. Before parting, it is made clear that this remanding of the matter to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC shall not alter/amend any factual scenario pertaining to the case of the assessee. The facts and circumstances of the case and the point of law has to be decided afresh only after the decision by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as per its order, which shall be the main guideline while deciding this case by the first appellate authority. 6. As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, on same parity of reasoning and for maintaining rule of consistency, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with similar direction as recorded in ITA No.630/RPR/2025 (supra). Printed from counselvise.com 5 Mukesh Kumar Goyal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 195/RPR/2025 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 06th February, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Printed from counselvise.com "