RAMESHWAR DASS HUF PROP JAGNA JEWELLERS,AMBALA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMBALA, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 889/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 July 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's presumption of sales deviating from past trends was fallacious, especially during an abnormal period like demonetization. Since the books of accounts were not rejected and documentary evidence supported the sales, the addition made on a ratio and proportion basis was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a jewellery trader, deposited cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's explanation of accumulated business sale receipts and added a significant portion of the deposit as undisclosed income.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of cash deposits as undisclosed income is justified when the assessee has provided documentary evidence of sales and the books of accounts have not been rejected, despite an unusual spurt in sales during demonetization.

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 →