ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELS (BUDAUN) PRIVATE LIMITED, BAREILLY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment under Section 143(3) had already been completed and the issue of share capital was examined and accepted, the subsequent addition under Section 153A based on the same material amounted to a 'change of opinion', which is not permissible. The Tribunal also noted the absence of incriminating material found during the search to justify the reassessment.
What were the facts?
During a search operation, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a credit of Rs. 60,00,000/- as share capital and premium. The AO treated this as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The assessee argued that the investor company was a sister concern and the transaction was examined and accepted in the original assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether an addition under Section 68 can be made in a search assessment under Section 153A when the issue was already examined and accepted in a completed regular assessment under Section 143(3) without any new incriminating material.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-3, Lucknow dated 27.06.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of
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 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026