USHA JEWELLERS,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

ITA 537/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 August 2026AY 2017-1813 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the mistake pointed out by the assessee was apparent from the record and fell within the scope of Section 154. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits pertained to the proprietorship concern after the firm's dissolution and were already assessed in the hands of the proprietor.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Usha Jewellers (a firm), had an addition of Rs. 31,69,500/- made to its income for AY 2017-18 on account of unexplained cash deposits. The firm was dissolved on 31.10.2016, and the business continued as a proprietorship by Shri Harshukbhai Soni. The assessee argued that the same cash deposits were already taxed in the hands of Shri Harshukbhai Soni, leading to double taxation.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits made in the hands of a dissolved firm can be rectified under Section 154 when the same deposits were already assessed in the hands of the successor proprietor, leading to double taxation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 69A,Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K Kabra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.06.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by the order of first appeal dated 21.02.2026 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the rectification-order dated 08.12.2023 passed by learned ITO, Ward-5, Navsari [“Ld. AO”] u/s 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on following effective grounds: Usha Jewellers “1. The Ld CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the rejection order u/s 154 of the Act, with regard

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 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →