ASHOK KUMAR KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) disallowance was not sustainable as the assessee had offered the income from undisclosed sales and no deduction was claimed. The addition for the loan from the father-in-law was upheld due to lack of proper verification. The estimation of household expenses by the AO was also upheld.
What were the facts?
During survey proceedings, a document found on the assessee's mobile phone indicated cash payments. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these payments under Section 40A(3) and also added back a loan from the father-in-law and estimated household expenses. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40A(3) is valid when the assessee has already offered income from undisclosed sales, and whether the addition for a loan from the father-in-law and estimation of household expenses are justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The Appellant, Ashok Kumar Khandelwal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing aforesaid interconnected appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 02.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2019-20 and 2020-21 on the grounds inter-alia that:- I.T.A No. 414 & 415/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Ashok kumar Khandelwal
“1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO whereby he has applied provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for disall
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 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026