JATINDER KUMAR MAGOTRA,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAMMU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO needs to consider the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee to correct any errors.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed their return late, and the Assessing Officer (AO) added unexplained cash credits to the total income. The assessee submitted explanations and evidence, but the AO proceeded with the assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO correctly added unexplained cash credits without properly considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. Whether the penalty for non-compliance with notices was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IUDICIALMEMBf,R
f-s ldt,d., K* M.gd.q 46 Seer.6,Chmillimma. (aDDelent) t(Pstcdd'l I
r96t,l tkn.4drh the td I datd t6ar]o.l Dclhi.p'skduk250ofrhcrl ^d, fL1r. r4 2s.d ua l47n4.fdF14d 1 codo"eibn ot Detav Inis Twerl k beh.nly filed by 23 ( r{ery fiF divs ) YhhHrheNsseh6erpL Ltdvide //'
Eaipb Therams bcjnc s,isirdo4
I bkci n ro.n 16 {hi.hrl.esroonryone rsueoraddiiionorir./0r: Jrrl onacoudof urexplainedc6hdetssibin binr unon@rd'p@.dirys*fti'''ld!id. trobe u^ 113 daEd ?e/0rr0 r r ( ,r /r, p,4 ldrfe ) . r. IixbsnceofiiJ- conprhic.oj nrpdr. b) rhcass$er rsued bt !'e Ao j rhe asssncd w3 r0,42,r l0/, o, econmofuicrplsined.ah d.posns jnbak
I hrs been rcprc$ded by Lfikn subnissidm \ltrhheh6d.posiren ]nhi5 baf (,.c dn'ned pmtu on fte sid B.ip6 @ s7. ( eiehr ltrmcge ). s rheLd6in$pelarea horir,v htr a[d\€d vids heariig 10 rhe a*!s3nd i6 .oi.d rhe *jsFm. orrDs n fte ndd orrh. as*sre ( ii rhe ponai) oe @ panry hj iD sbfnceoran),.videik otr,<!4. R ol the dsse liled .$h book 8lotrg wirh $dhen s'bmnsionsexplaioingdde w
dE crl' 6. rhe Ld DR relied on rhc o'd.. or rhe Ld clr ( A ) and abmnidl 'l!r rhe 96* Eccip6 .otrdr.d b fte-IDs als ne{b Eifidio bdfi.aok-r. 7. we hrve hear,l dre rival 5ubftnsio
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 →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026