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

ITA 155/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 September 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances of the present cases for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were identical to those for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20, which were decided by a co-ordinate bench. The co-ordinate bench had observed that the addition made on account of impounded material (LP-1) representing unaccounted purchases should only bring the profit element to tax. The CIT(A) had applied a profit percentage of 26.40% to the unaccounted sales. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the profit element embedded in unaccounted transactions. However, in the present cases, the Tribunal, in light of the previous decision and the identical facts, deemed it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. The AO was 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 (ITA Nos. 19 & 20/JAB/20223). The grounds raised in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nitin Kumar Ahuja, filed appeals for Assessment Years (AYs) 2016-17 and 2017-18 against orders of the CIT(A)-3, Raipur. The appeals stem from survey proceedings under Section 133A at Nitin Jewellers and Shri Shankar Lal Ahuja's premises. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessee's case under Section 147, issued a notice under Section 148, and subsequently made an addition of Rs. 3,03,598/- for AY 2016-17 and Rs. 3,36,758/- for AY 2017-18. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to the present appeals before the ITAT. The core of the dispute involves additions made based on loose papers (LP-1) and statements recorded during the survey.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)-3, Raipur, had jurisdiction to pass orders when the assessee's appeal was filed before the CIT(A), Bhopal, under whose jurisdiction the assessee lies, and if transferred, whether it was done without affording an opportunity to the assessee, rendering the order bad in law? 2. Whether the assessment proceedings under Section 147 were liable to be quashed as no reasons were recorded by the AO for reopening, and the reopening was not as per law? 3. Whether the assessment proceedings were liable to be quashed as the addition was based solely on a statement recorded during a survey, which had no evidentiary value and was retracted due to alleged pressure? 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 assessee's explanation that the amount was part of books made on an estimate basis without bills/vouchers, and not an out-of-books transaction? Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction. Reopening under Section 147 was bad in law. Additions were based on a retracted survey statement and loose papers (LP-1) without proper consideration. The AO passed the order casually. The issue of LP-1 was decided in the assessee's favour in previous years by a co-ordinate bench in ITA Nos. 19 & 20/JAB/20223. Revenue's Contentions: - The 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 →