Raj Filling Station vs. DCIT/ACIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

This appeal arises from an order dated 09.03.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.09.2016. During the survey, the partner of the firm disclosed additional income of Rs. 1 crore based on discrepancies found in the books of account and other incriminating documents. The assessee filed a return of income reflecting the surrendered amount of Rs. 1 crore as a credit in the profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer added this amount under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but could not succeed as the Commissioner upheld the Assessing Officer's action. The assessee then approached the ITAT challenging the treatment of Rs. 1 crore under section 68 and the taxing of the same at a higher rate under section 115BBE of the Act.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the additional income disclosed during the survey should be treated as business income under section 68 of the Act.
• 2. Whether the enhanced rate of tax under section 115BBE of the Act applies to the transactions prior to 01.04.2017.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Raja Paints India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• ITO, Ward-3(1), Gaya vs. Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya

  Patna Bench, Patna benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Avtar Singh Kochar (AY: 2019-20)

  C Bench, Delhi benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• ITA No. 3497/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18

  Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Usha Patodia Vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Mr. Shourav Sen vs. I.T.O., Ward 61(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed