ABDUL KARNUMA SHAIK,GUNTUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR., GUNTUR

ITA 638/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 September 2026AY 2020-2114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the initial admission under Section 132(4) is important but rebuttable. Since the assessee provided evidence to rebut the AO's and CIT(A)'s estimations, a reasonable profit needed to be estimated.

What were the facts?

During a search, the assessee admitted unaccounted sales and 50% of the receipts as income. Later, the assessee retracted this admission, claiming the quantification was incorrect and resulted in a loss after considering expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether additions based solely on a retracted Section 132(4) statement are sustainable, and how to estimate profit on unaccounted receipts when the assessee's own working is not fully supported.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 132(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Pronounced: 09.09.2026

PER MANJUNATHA G., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

These appeals are filed by the Assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3 [“Ld.CIT(Appeals)”], Visakhapatnam dated 27.03.2026 and 28.03.2026 for the A.Y.2020-21

ITA 638/Viz/2026 to 641/Viz/2026 Abdul Karnuma Shaik to 2023-24. Since the facts and issues involved in these appeals are identical, th

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.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →