PCIT v. Ram Builders (Bombay High Court)
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources -Bogus purchases-Civil works-Road construction-Information from Sales Tax Department-Order of Tribunal estimated profit of 12.5% on unexplained and non-genuine purchases is affirmed by High Court. [S. 37(1), 143(3), 260A] The assessee is involved in the execution of Civil works like road construction etc .under the Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra and Municipal Corporation of the Government of Maharashtra. Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain…
Result: Revenue appeal dismissed; estimated-profit treatment sustained; no costs. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 69C
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources -Bogus purchases-Civil works-Road construction-Information from Sales Tax Department-Order of Tribunal estimated profit of 12.5% on unexplained and non-genuine purchases is affirmed by High Court. [S. 37(1), 143(3), 260A] The assessee is involved in the execution of Civil works like road construction etc .under the Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra and Municipal Corporation of the Government of Maharashtra. Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain…
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
The Principal Commissioner } of Income Tax -25, C-10 } Pratyakshakar Bhavan } Bandra-Kurla Complex, } Mumbai – 400 051. } .. Appellant
** Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr. P. A. Narayanan, Mr. Ajay V. Anand & Ms. Raveen Kaur, Advocates for the Appellant. ** CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
2. The appellant has framed the following question of law for
The respondent / assessee is involved in the execution of civil works
Mumbai. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee fled a return
Appellant / assessee submissions
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the view expressed by
11. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
11. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
Operative decision and relief
revenue’s appeal has been dismissed and the order passed by the
appeal before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 09 th March, 2015 allowed
14. The Income Tax Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
Source and subsequent history
Primary record: Official primary source search pending
Later-history status: Review / appeal / SLP status: check pending
High Court review, intra-court appeal where applicable, and Supreme Court SLP/appeal history remain to be closed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources -Bogus purchases-Civil works-Road construction-Information from Sales Tax Department-Order of Tribunal estimated profit of 12.5% on unexplained and non-genuine purchases is affirmed by High Court. [S. 37(1), 143(3), 260A] The assessee is involved in the execution of Civil works like road construction etc .under the Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra and Municipal Corporation of the Government of Maharashtra. Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with s. 69c : unexplained expenditure-income from undisclosed sources -bogus purchases-civil works-road construction-information from sales tax department-order of tribunal estimated profit of 12.5% on unexplained and non-genuine purchases is affirmed by high court. [s. 37(1), 143(3), 260a] the assessee is involved in the execution of civil works like road construction etc .under the public works department of the government of maharashtra and municipal corporation of the government of maharashtra. based on the information received from the sales tax department the assessing officer asked the assessee to explain… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending |
| Repository release | Published |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in PCIT v. Ram Builders (Bombay High Court)?
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources -Bogus purchases-Civil works-Road construction-Information from Sales Tax Department-Order of Tribunal estimated profit of 12.5% on unexplained and non-genuine purchases is affirmed by High Court. [S. 37(1), 143(3), 260A] The assessee is involved in the execution of Civil works like road construction etc .under the Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra and Municipal Corporation of the Government of Maharashtra. Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain…
Which facts matter most?
The Principal Commissioner } of Income Tax -25, C-10 } Pratyakshakar Bhavan } Bandra-Kurla Complex, } Mumbai – 400 051. } .. Appellant
What did the Bombay High Court decide?
14. The Income Tax Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources -Bogus purchases-Civil works-Road construction-Information from Sales Tax Department-Order of Tribunal estimated profit of 12.5% on unexplained and non-genuine purchases is affirmed by High Court. [S. 37(1), 143(3), 260A] The assessee is involved in the execution of Civil works like road construction etc .under the Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra and Municipal Corporation of the Government of Maharashtra. Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
69C
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources -Bogus purchases-Civil works-Road construction-Information from Sales Tax Department-Order of Tribunal estimated profit of 12.5% on unexplained and non-genuine purchases is affirmed by High Court. [S. 37(1), 143(3), 260A] The assessee is involved in the execution of Civil works like road construction etc .under the Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra and Municipal Corporation of the Government of Maharashtra. Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- 69C - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- SANJAY VRAJLAL KOTHARI V ITO 25(2)(3), MUMBAI - ITAT Mumbai - G Bench
- Ramachandra Kanu Mendadkar v. CIT(A) - ITAT Mumbai - D Bench
- ACIT v Ramlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. - ITAT Mumbai - D Bench
Different outcome / possible distinction
- ITO v. Hi-Link City Homes Pvt. Ltd. - Partly allowed
- Ajit Bapu Satam v. Dy. CIT - Allowed
Related Finin2min resources
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending · Repository status: Published
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.