DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE SAMBALPUR vs. OMPRAKASH GUPTA, SUNDARGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing that the addition for suppressed sales be restricted to 1.51% of the revised undisclosed turnover. However, the addition for violation of Section 40A(3) was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide exceptional reasons for cash payments.
What were the facts?
Following a search operation, the Assessing Officer made additions for suppressed sales and violation of Section 40A(3). The CIT(A) reduced the addition for suppressed sales after considering a remand report, but the revenue appealed this reduction.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) correctly reduced the addition for suppressed sales and if the assessee's cash payments violated Section 40A(3).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,कटकन्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.635 & 654/CTK/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Sundargarh, Odisha- 770001. PAN No. : AEIPG1858G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं/IT(SS)A No.34/CTK/2026 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Sundargarh, Odisha- 770001. PAN No. : AEIPG1858G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) C.O No.08/CTK/2026 (in ITA No.654/CTK/2025) (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Sundargarh, Odisha- 770001. PAN No. : AEIPG1858G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..
धििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Kr. Kedia, AR राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue by : Shri Jeetendra Kumar, CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 04/06/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04/06/2026
2 ITA Nos. 635 &
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 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026