KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. JCIT(C.C), ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that additions for sundry creditors where the assessee failed to provide evidence beyond ledger accounts were justified. However, regarding additions based on the DVO's report for investment in construction, the matter was restored to the AO to consider the assessee's objections.
What were the facts?
The assessee's premises were searched, leading to additions for sundry creditors and investment in building based on DVO's report. The ITAT had previously remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on these issues.
What were the issues?
Whether additions for sundry creditors are justified when only ledger accounts are provided, and whether additions based on DVO's report for investment in construction are valid without considering assessee's objections.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 145(3),Section 250,Section 254
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. DCIT907 citing147 TTJ 513 · 2012 · ITAT
- CIT v. Raj Kumar Arora253 citing367 ITR 517 · 2014 · HC
- Sargam Cinema v. CIT172 citing328 ITR 513 · 2010 · SC
- Sargam Cinema v. CIT26 citing339 ITR 588 · 2011 · HC
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Dr. H. Rahman8 citing55 Taxmann 408 · 1991 · HC
- CIT v. Smt. Shaila Agarwal6 citing65 DTR 2012
- James P. Dsilva v. DCIT, Circle-28(3), Mumbai6 citing175 ITD 533 · 2019 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow-3, dated 21.06.2023 passed under section 250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the issues involved in all these appeals is the same, they are taken up for hearing and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.
The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under:- “1. That in any view of the matter in respect of business activity regular books of account have been maintained which are audited year after year and trading result has been accepted by the department in past and even proviso to section 145(3) was not invoked henc
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026