SATISH KRISHNAKANT MOHOLE,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, NASHIK
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition solely based on the assessee's statement during the survey, without considering if the discrepancies were accounted for. The Tribunal found the addition unsupported by evidence.
What were the facts?
During a survey, the assessee offered Rs. 5.5 lakh as additional income from undisclosed sources based on loose sheets. However, this amount was not offered while filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer made this amount as an addition to the total income.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 5.5 lakh made by the Assessing Officer, based on an admission during a survey, is justified when the assessee claims the discrepancies were accounted for in the books of account.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
ORDER
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Nashik dated 10.12.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.
In this appeal, the assessee raised the following effective ground :- “1) The learned CIT(A)-1, Nashik was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5,50,000/- made by the A.O.” 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is an authorized dealer for sale of products of Siemens, Schneider Electric and others. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.42,43,840/-. In scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer determined -2- Rs.47,93,840/- and made addition of Rs.5,50,000/-. 4. The related facts of the issue include that the assessee was surveyed u/s 133A of the Act on 06.08.2013. The assessee runs a proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Swati Enterprises. During the survey action, in view of certain entries on the loos sheets, the assessee offered a sum of Rs.5.5 lakh as additional income from the undisclosed sources for the assessment year 2014-15. However, the said amount was not offered while filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 19.12.2016 proposing to make the said amount as additional income of the assessee. In response, the assessee replied vide letter dated 21.12.2016 stating that the discrepancies found out by the Survey Team were accounted at the time of conclusion of the books of account of the assessee. However, rejecting the assessee’s explanation, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the said amount as addition as per discussion given in para 5.2 of the assessment order. For the sake of completeness, the said para 5.2 of the assessment order is extracted as follows :- “5.2 The submission of the assessee has been perused and duly considered but not acceptable. During survey action, assessee was specifically asked as per loose paper found in survey premises and has entry shows to him amount of Rs.1 lakh against pradip, Rs. 2.5 lakh against Rahul and Rs. 2 lakh against NTPC. In his answer assessee has admitted that these transactions have not recorded in the regular books of accounts and also I am not in a position to reconcile the same. He has also accepted and offer the above said amount of Rs.5.5 lakh as additional income from undisclosed sources for the current year. The assessee has not offered additional income from undisclosed sources in filed original return of income. I therefore, added to the total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- as undisclosed income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately for concealment of income.”
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Susanta Mohanty, Gandarpur, Cuttack vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Arun Kumar Mallik vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs,BbsrOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Sabita Khosla vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Rayagada-Ii Range, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Karo Sambhav Private Limited Through Its Director Mr. Pranshu Singhal vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 31 Oct 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026