LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

ITA 840/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 April 2026AY 2017-1816 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in applying Section 68 to the realization of debtors, as these were merely collections of existing sales. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO's observations were general and lacked specific discrepancies, and that the assessee's sales and purchases were accepted by VAT authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned additions made under Sections 69A and 68 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issue revolved around the genuineness of cash sales and debtors' realization, particularly during the demonetization period.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made under Section 69A and Section 68 were justified, given the assessee's documented sales, VAT compliance, and the nature of debtors' realization.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 68,Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate and Smt, CA (Physical)
For Respondent: Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. CIT-DR
Hearing: 29.01.2026

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Jaipur-5 [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] dated 10.09.2025 with respect to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice issued u/s 143(2) by the AO was not issued in one of the three formats which were specifically prescribed, in spite of the fact that the CBDT had issued specific instructions vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 in this regard. The Ld. Counsel argued that in this case notice issued u/s 143(2) was not in the specifically prescribed format and so it was 2 Asst. Year: 2017-18 not in accordance

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →