PAVITRA LIFE STYLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 216/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 August 2026AY 2017-185 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's presumption of manipulation based on past trends was fallacious, especially in an abnormal year like demonetization. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including cash book and sales invoices.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in diamond and jewellery trading, deposited Rs. 97.26 Lacs in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted an exponential rise in cash sales and cash-in-hand, suspecting manipulation.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization, attributed to increased sales, can be added as undisclosed income solely based on a deviation from past business trends without rejecting the books of account or finding specific defects in evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →