AUM JEWELS, DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(1), DELHI
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited a large sum of cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this cash as unexplained income, citing a lack of comparable cash deposits in prior and subsequent years and an unusual surge in turnover. The assessee claimed the cash was from sales, but the AO found the cash book and sales trend unconvincing.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the cash sales of Rs. 9,05,200/- recorded in the impounded book did not belong to the assessee firm but to an individual, Mrs. Rita Bagga, who had declared and paid taxes on this income. The AO had not made inquiries to negate the assessee's claim.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period were unexplained income, and whether sales recorded in a seized book belonged to the assessee firm or an individual.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] both dated 24.12.2024 arising out of the respective Assessment Orders different dated 24.12.2019 and 30.09.2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein
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 68
- Rajeshkumar Shah, Navagam, Udhana vs Income Tax Officer, AdajanITA 283/SRT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Jabar Bhuraram Chaudhary, Lunawada vs Income Tax Office Ward 1, LunawadaITA 2640/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Prafulldan Motising Gadhvi, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 4(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Pratyaksha Kar…ITA 2589/AHD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sea Side Hotel Private Limited, Mumbai vs Ward 11(2)(1), MumbaiITA 7336/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Bibhasa Jena vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar CommissionerateOrissa · 9 Oct 2026
- M/S Otd Logistics Express Private Limited vs. The Commissioner CGST Cx And CustomsOrissa · 9 Oct 2026
- Sangram Mallik vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And CustomsOrissa · 9 Oct 2026
- Amitabh Samal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Cuttack 1Orissa · 9 Oct 2026
- Atul Kumar vs. The SuperintendentUttarakhand · 8 Oct 2026