MADHUBEN KANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's income was trade discount received as a resale agent, which was explained. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified as the assessee had provided evidence of its income source.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a resale agent for Sumul Dairy, deposited a large sum in a joint bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) re-opened the assessment and made an addition treating a portion of the discount received as unexplained money, as the assessee had not filed a return. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the discount received by a resale agent from a dairy for sale of milk products can be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. Whether the re-opening of assessment and subsequent additions were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 144B,Section 143(2),Section 271AAC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 09.03.2026 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumsta
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 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026