आयकरअपील(cid:547)यअ(cid:876)धकरण,राजकोटÛयायपीठ,राजकोट।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.405/RJT/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष (cid:91) /Assessment Year: (2010-11)

Jigar Industries Income Tax Officer बनाम Plot No. 164/5, GIDC -2 Jamwadi, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot, Income Tax Vs.

Gondal, Office, New Aayakar Bhawan, Rajkot-360311 Vatika Rajkot-360007 èथायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /. PAN/GIR No.AABFJ5914B (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Assessee) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent)

(cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रतीक(cid:551)ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. AR राजèवक(cid:551)ओरस/े Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr-DR Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 सुनवाईक(cid:551)तार(cid:547)ख /

Date of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 घोषणाक(cid:551)तार(cid:547)ख /

आदेश/

Order PerDr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M;

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2010-11, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)[in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 16.05.2024,which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated

20.12.2017.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

(1). The Ld.CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Income tax Act. 1961. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the action of reopening as invalid and the same may kindly be held as invalid.

(2). The LdCIT(A), has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Assessing Officer that the Assessee has clandestinely removed goods amounting to Rs.1,91,35,820/-on completely relying upon the show cause notice and materials supplied by the excise department without finding any defect in books of accounts and without any new tangible material.

(3). The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.52,09,784/- towards alleged undisclosed gross profit @ 24.02% on suppressed sales solely based on a show-cause notice issued by the Excise Department, without any independent finding of suppression or any defect in the books of accounts.

(4).The LdCIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹15,00,849/-on account of alleged initial investment in raw material purchases without any material evidence or corroboration and purely on estimated basis.

Without Prejudice to the above grounds:

(5). The Ld CIT(A) and Ld/- assessing officer erred in not considering the net profit margin and considering the Gross Profit, as income from the alleged unaccounted sales, in accordance with the settled principles of income determined in cases involving suppressed turnover.

(6). The Ld assessing officer erred in making estimation of profit in arbitrary, excessive and without support of any cogent material or comparable data and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding estimation of profit made by Ld assessing officer. Estimation of profit made without and cogent material deserves to be deleted or suitable reduced.

(7). The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any of the above grounds before or at the time of hearing.”

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal, are stated in brief. As per the information available, with the Income Tax Department, the assessing officer observed that the assessee-firm has purchased a huge quantity of copper wires from M/s High Cop Manufacturing Company, Rajkot without bills and used the same to manufacture electric cable and wires and then cleared the same without preparing invoices and received the payment in cash. During the relevant previous year, the assessee has purchased raw material of Rs.1,73,96,200/-, without invoice and sold the finished goods a