ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. LALJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO was not legally correct in making the addition based on mere suspicion and that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. The Tribunal followed previous judgments and the High Court's affirmation of similar orders.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a jeweler, reported substantial cash sales during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated a significant portion of these sales as bogus and added it to the income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, directing addition of profit on premium sales.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO was justified in treating a portion of cash sales during demonetization as bogus receipts without sufficient evidence, and whether the CIT(A) erred in partially allowing the appeal by considering profit on premium sales.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER BENCH:
These are cross-appeals by the assessee as well as the Revenue against the order dated 16.09.2020, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Lucknow (ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of SALE OF Jewellery during the year under consideration. The assessee e-filed its return of income for ITA No.373/LKW/2020 & ITA No.434/LKW/2020 the year under consideration on 06.11.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.36,32,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Aided S
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026