BABITA GUPTA,CUTTACK vs. I T O WARD 2 ( 3) CUTTACK, CUTTACK

ITA 261/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 June 2026AY 2017-1819 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) had jurisdiction. It found the explanation for the missing vouchers unconvincing due to the lack of supporting evidence and the nature of the vouchers. However, it ruled that ad-hoc disallowances are not permissible.

What were the facts?

During a survey, eleven vouchers were found not to be entered in the assessee's cash book. The Assessing Officer made an addition for SBN cash deposits and a disallowance for travelling expenses. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction and that the missing vouchers were due to the accountant's illness.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) had jurisdiction to pass the order and if the addition for unrecorded vouchers and ad-hoc disallowances were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 03/06/2026Pronounced: 03/06/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10597/2019-20 order dated 18/02/2026 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri B.K. Mohapatra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee on 26.7.2017. In the course of survey, books of account of the assessee are impounded. It was the submission that eleven vou

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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →