KUNDAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHI CHOWK, SADAR BAZAR, MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio because the AO initiated them based on incorrect facts and without proper application of mind. The alleged transactions did not belong to the assessee company.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Kundan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., engaged in goldsmith labor charges, had its assessment reopened based on information suggesting it provided accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged undisclosed transactions of Rs. 70,09,601/- with Ridhi International.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated based on incorrect facts and without proper application of mind are valid. Whether the addition made on account of alleged accommodation entries is sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- ITO v. Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust12 citing158 ITD 965 · 2016 · ITAT
- ITO v. Sukhvir Singh10 citing165 Taxmann.com 197 · 2024 · ITAT
- M/s BIC Cello India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT3 citing475 ITR 463 · 2025 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 20.02.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 147/144B of the Act.
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows:
2 Assessment Year: 2014-15
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and law, vide order u/s 250 of the Act dt. 20.02.2025, in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,09,601/- U/S 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, made by the AO vide assessment order u
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 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026