##PAGE1##

1

ITA No.3586/Mum/2025

Aamir Khatri

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A No. 3586/Mum/2025

(Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Aamir Khatri vs DCIT – 17(1), Mumbai

183, 2^nd Floor, Ashoka Shopping Centre, (erstwhile ACIT-2(1),

Lokmnya Tilak Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai),

Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400

PAN : AGKPK1753E 051

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Present for Assessee Shri Suchek Anchaliaya

Present for Revenue Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR.)

Date of hearing 04/12/2025

Date if pronouncement 19/12/2025

O R D E R

Per : Shri Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter called, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed

under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for

Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 25/03/2025. The impugned order

emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-

tax – 21(1), Mumbai (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”), order passed under section

143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, date of order 21/08/2017.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:-

2

ITA No.3586/Mum/2025

Aamir Khatri

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and is low, the Ld. NFAC in

confirming the addition of Rs. 2,55,53,840/-, by excluding DEPB income from

turnover and profit for calculating gross profit without considering that DEPB

income is part and parcel of appellant's export business and therefore, must be

included in the profit forting gross profit of the appellant.

2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in les, the Learned

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) erred in invoking the provisions of

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and setting aside the order of the Ld. AO

without appreciating the Tact that the condition laid down for invoking the

section 263 of the Act was not satisfied.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both

on facts and in low in ignoring the fact that the proceeding under Section 263 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be used for substituting the opinion of the

Ld.AO the course of assessment proceeding by that of the Pr. CIT.

4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Pr. CIT under

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable as the power to revise

can be invoked in the case of lack of enquiry, not in the case of inadequate

enquiry and same is bad in law.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or modify any or all the

above grounds of appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that related to the impugned assessment

year, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the Ld.AO found

that the assessee has declared low gross profit @0.60% and the net profit ratio

is 0.33%. The Ld. AO estimated the gross profit @1% on the turnover and

completed the assessment. Accordingly, the Ld.AO determined @1% of

turnover amount to Rs.34,58,960/- in the original assessment, u/s 143(3) of

the Act, date of order 27/03/2015. The assessee has offered its gross profit in

return of income amount to Rs.15,75,024/-. Hence, the difference amount of

Rs.18,87,936/- is added back to the total income of the assessee. The

observations of the Ld.AO in assessment order u/s 143(3) is reproduced

below:-

3

ITA No.3586/Mum/2025

Aamir Khatri

“5. The filed information has been verified and noticed that assessee has shown Gross Profit

ratio as 0.43% and Net Profit Ratio as 0.84% in the case of the assessee during the scrutiny

proceedings for A.Y 2011-12, the G.P is estimated at 1%. The facts being same, AR was

requested to explain vide order sheet entry dated 10.03.2015 as to why the G.P for the

A.Y.2012-13 should not be taken at 1% at par and reasonable with previous years G.P. The

A.R. agreed to the same. After going through the submission, it is concluded that GP

percentage shown as 0.60% is not consistent with the trend of h