HEMPCANN SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 , BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the non-availability of cash, when an employee stated it was with the Managing Director who was not questioned, cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
What were the facts?
During a survey, the assessee's cash book showed a balance of Rs. 3,89,671, but no physical cash was found. An employee stated the Managing Director maintained the cash, but the MD was not questioned. The AO treated the missing cash as unexplained expenditure.
What were the issues?
Whether the non-availability of physical cash, with an explanation that it was with the Managing Director who was not questioned, can be treated as unexplained expenditure under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 133A,Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Bhubaneswar-2/10054/2022-23 order dated 28/11/2025 for the assessment year 2023-24. 2. None appeared for the assessee. However, written submission has been filed, which reads as under:
“1. That a survey operation was carried out under section 133A of the Act in the business premises of the Company on 27/07/2022. Notice was issued u/s 142(1) dated 02/11/2024 to which the assesse
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 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026