NITIN KUMAR AHUJA,KATNI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

ITA 155/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 September 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances of the present case were identical to those in the Assessment Year 2018-19, for which a Co-ordinate Bench had previously decided the issue. The Tribunal referred to the co-ordinate bench's observation that the CIT(A) had rationally arrived at the basis of working unaccounted sales and, relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, concluded that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted sales should be taxed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings for AY 2018-19. Since the Departmental Representative did not point out any change in facts for the current assessment years, the Tribunal, in light of the Division Bench's decision for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, deemed it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue afresh in light of the Division Bench's order in the assessee's own case. The grounds raised in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nitin Kumar Ahuja, filed appeals for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18 against orders of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Raipur. These appeals challenge the dismissal of his appeals by the CIT(A). The case originated from a survey action under section 133A at Nitin Jewellers and the premises of Shankar Lal Ahuja. Subsequently, the assessee's case was reopened under section 147, a notice under section 148 was issued, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 3,03,598/- for AY 2016-17 and Rs. 3,36,758/- for AY 2017-18. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction and that the assessment proceedings were bad in law. The Tribunal heard both appeals together.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Raipur-3 had jurisdiction to pass the order, given the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Bhopal, under which the appellant's jurisdiction lies, and if transferred, whether it was done without providing an opportunity to the appellant. - Assessee: Argued that the CIT(A) Raipur lacked jurisdiction and that any transfer of the case to his jurisdiction was done without affording a mandatory opportunity of being heard, rendering the order liable for quashing. - Revenue: Supported the orders of the lower authorities. 2. Whether the assessment proceedings under section 147 are bad in law because no reasons were recorded by the AO for reopening, and the reopening was not as per law. - Assessee: Contended that the assessment proceedings were not initiated as per law, as no reasons were recorded by the AO, and the reopening was flawed. - Revenue: Supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3. Whether the assessment proceedings should be quashed as they were based solely on a statement recorded during a survey, which has no evidentiary value and was retracted due to alleged pressurization. - Assessee: Argued that the assessment was based on a survey statement that lacked evidentiary value and was retracted due to coercion. - Revenue: Supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 33,958/- (for AY 2016-17) and Rs. 3,36,758/- (for AY 2017-18) made by the AO was justified, considering the AO misinterpreted the assessee's statement regarding the amount not being recorded in books of accounts and the absence of bills/vouchers, which the assessee claimed was an estimate basis. - Assessee: Contended that the AO misinterpreted the statement, and the amount was part of books made on an estimate basis without maintaining bills and vouchers. - Revenue: Supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the additions without considering the assessee's reply during appellate proceedings and acting in a malafide manner. - Assessee: Alleged that the CIT(A) failed to consider the reply filed during appellate proceedings and passed the order malafide. - Revenue: Supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in following earlier orders on the same issue and orders of the Hon'ble ITAT, thereby failing to follow the rules of judicial discipline by not following higher authorities' orders. - Assessee: Argued that the CIT(A) failed to follow judicial discipline by not adhering to orders of higher authorities. - Revenue: Supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

These two appeals, preferred by the assessee, pertaining to the A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18 are directed against two different orders of the Ld. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Raipur, [hereinafter referred as the “Ld.CIT(A)”] both dated 13.03.2025. Since the identical grounds have been taken except change into figure. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

First, I take up ITA. No.155/JAB/2025 for the A.Y. 2016-

17.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) Raipur-3 was not justified in dismissing t

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 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →