SHAHDHAR COPPER INDUSTRIES,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SRINAGAR

ITA 721/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the bank account belonged to an ex-partner and the deposits were accounted for. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 15.25 Lacs on account of cash deposits, as the assessee did not provide any representation. The assessee contended that the bank account belonged to an ex-partner and the deposits were accounted for in the ex-partner's return.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account belonging to an ex-partner, and accounted for in their return, should be added to the firm's income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 07.08.2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 of the Act on 31.12.2019. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of cash deposits for Rs.15.25 Lacs for want of any representation from assessee therein. During first appeal, the assessee

contended that the said

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →