M/S JAI MAA VAISHNAVI ENTERPRISES,ROORKEE vs. CIT (A) & ITO ROORKEE, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 231/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 August 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the challenges to the AO's jurisdiction were adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). However, the issue of the differential amount was not crystal clear, necessitating re-examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a certain income, but information from the Excise Department revealed a higher payment for a liquor license. The difference between the assessee's books and the Excise Department's records was added to the income.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of the differential amount between the assessee's books and the Excise Department's records is justified, and whether the reopening of assessment was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC: DEHRADUN BENCH

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Karnesh Sharma, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 21.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC: DEHRADUN BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 231/DDN/2025 [Assessment Year: 2016-17] M/s Jai Maa Vaishnavi Enterprises, Union of India / CIT(A)/ ITO Rke, 347, Arya Samaj Road, Income Tax Officer, Ayykar Roorkee, Vs Bhawan, Civil Lines Roorkee- Uttarakhand-247663. 247667. PAN- Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Karnesh Sharma, Adv. Revenue by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.08.2026 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal arises from the dated 22.09.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as’ the Act’), by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the assessee had filed a return of income for the present assessment year declaring total income of Rs. 3,18,910/-. Some information was received from District Excise Officer, Haridwar, that one Shri Anuj Kumar was granted license for running a liquor shop, for which a total amount of Rs.

231/DDN/2025 M/s Jai Maa Vaishnavi Enterprises 1,43,73,840/- was paid. It was discovered that Shri Anuj Kumar had not filed a return of income and therefore, a notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act to Shri Anuj Kumar. It was explained by Shri Anuj Kumar that though the liquor license had been granted in his name but the entire business was being carried out by the AOP M/s Jai Maa Vaishnavi Enterprises (assessee). Thereafter, the Ld. AO elicited a response of payment of Rs. 1,43,73,840/- from the Excise Department. The ld. AO found that as per the assessee’s books, the total payment was of Rs. 1,31,22,735/- whereas as per the Excise Department, the payment received was Rs. 1,43,73,840/-. The differential of Rs. 12,51,105/- was held to be unexplained and added u/s 69C of the Act.

1.2 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the CIT(A), where also he could not succeed, leading to the present appeal before the ITAT. It is seen that the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal through which the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO and the addition on merits has been challenged.

2.

Before us, the Ld. AR argued with the help of a paper book and read out from the reply submitted before the Ld. CIT(A), as extracted on page no. 5 of the impugned order. Since the working leading to the addition, as reproduced in the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, is relevant for deciding the present case, we may extract the same as under:

231/DDN/2025 M/s Jai Maa Vaishnavi Enterprises

“

2.1 It was the submission that while the assessee had booked the amount paid after including the guarantee amount, whereas the Excise Department supplied the details after excluding the guarantee amount. The Ld. AR pointed out a number of documents placed for our perusal, including the allotment of liquor shop and certain connected documents thereon. It was stated by the Ld. AR that the impugned difference was as a result of not looking at the payments as a whole but rather by taking a narrow approach where the assessee’s contention has not been considered. The Ld. AR mentioned that the reopening was bad in law, as it was done only to make roving and fishing inquiry.

2.2 Ld. DR pointed out that the legal challenges to the reopening had been dealt with by the CIT(A) adequately in para no. 5.1.1. to 5.1.12 on pages 9 to 30 of the impugned order. It was also pointed out by the Ld. DR that even by the assessee’s 3

231/DDN/2025 M/s Jai Maa Vaishnavi Enterprises own admission, as per the extract on page 5 of the impugned order, there was some difference between the information received from the Excise Department and the books of accounts of the assessee.

3.

We have carefully considered the rival submission and gone through the records before us. It is seen that the challenges to the assumption of jurisdiction have been adequately dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A) at pages 9 to 30 of the impugned order, accordingly, we do not deem it fit to interfere with the same. Regarding the issue of differential in amount shown in the books of the assessee and the information received from the Excise Department, we find that while the assessee has placed on record a number of documents but still the impugned difference is not crystal clear. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order on this particular issue and remit the same back to the file of the AO for re-examination of the said difference in the light of the documents available with the assessee and the explanation which the Ld. AR has been taking pains to canvass before us, as evident from page 5 of the impugned order. The ld. AO would take all of this into consideration and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

231/DDN/2025 M/s Jai Maa Vaishnavi Enterprises 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21 .08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [SANJAY AWASTHI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 21.08.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →