AI Insights
The case involves Vijay Steels, the appellant, contesting an order by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which upheld the Income Tax Officer's decision treating sales amounting to Rs. 25,42,372.89 to M/s Zhongmao International Projects Pvt. Ltd. as bogus. The primary legal issue was whether the entire sales could be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities on the sales being bogus but modified the treatment by not considering the entire sales amount as unexplained, but only the profit element therein.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772622 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-08-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Assessment Year
2022-2023
Judgement Text
"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4478/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2022-23 Vijay Steels, Kanth Road, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh-244221 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Moradabad, U.P.-244001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHFV5468Q Assessee by: Sh. Rohit Agarwal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076170350(1) dated 13.05.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly treated the assessee’s sales in question of Rs.25,42,372.89 to M/s Zhongmao International Projects Pvt. Ltd. as bogus once so as to treat the same as it’s unexplained cash credits, in assessment order dated 19.03.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4478/Del/2025 Vijay Steels 2 4. This being the clinching factual position, the tribunal is of the considered view that although no fault could be found in the learned lower authorities identical action in principle, the facts however remains that treating the entire sales as bogus u/s 68 than only the profit element embodied therein, could not be per se sustainable in law and the only inference which would arise in such an instance would be that of clandestine sales made out of books to other parties. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the peculiar factual backdrop that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,50,000/- representing the assessee’s GP element would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/08/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 26/08/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Social Media Brand Kit
₹100
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026