PUNIT GOEL,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

ITA 500/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 August 2026AY 2016-1714 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions for sundry creditors were unsustainable as the purchases were not doubted, and the creditworthiness of creditors is not material when purchases are genuine. The rejection of books of accounts was also deemed unsustainable as the assessee had e-filed most documents and was not given sufficient time to produce the rest.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to discrepancies between reported receipts and Form 26AS. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for differences in receipts and for sundry creditors where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were not fully established. The AO also rejected the assessee's books of accounts.

What were the issues?

Whether additions for sundry creditors are justified when purchases are accepted, and whether rejection of books of accounts is valid when substantial compliance was made within a limited timeframe.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 145(3),Section 133(6),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

For Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 2.07.2025 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeals of the assessee that were filed against the order of the ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2016-17 on 25.12.2018. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1 That the Learned Lower Court erred in law and facts of the case by not allowing the appeal.

2.

That the Learned Lower Court erred in law by not providing the reasonable 2 opportunity of being heard through video conferencing even after requesting for the same.

3.

That the Learned Lower Court erred in facts and legal aspects of the case in making addition of Rs. 13,35,356/-being dif

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →