SITARAM GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently substantiated his claim by providing financial statements of both firms up to the survey date. The absence of a stock register alone was not sufficient reason to reject the explanation, especially when the financial statements were not found to be infirm.
What were the facts?
During a survey, stock worth Rs. 27,01,745/- was found. The assessee claimed part belonged to his firm and the rest to his son's firm, supported by financial statements. The AO treated the entire stock as unexplained income.
What were the issues?
Whether the stock found during survey was sufficiently explained by the assessee through financial statements, despite the absence of a stock register.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal CIT(A), Jaipur 04 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated
P a g e | 2 Sitaram Gupta 11.02.2026 under Section 250of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
The grounds raised read as under:-
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.27,01,745/- made by AO on account of alleged unexplained stock found during survey proceedings by not accepting the contention of assessee that stock of Rs.7,04,867/-is verifiable from the financial accounts of M/s Sitaram Bhagwan Dass and balance st
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 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 →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
