M.K. GUPTA AND SONS HUF,C/O CA SAHIL GUPTA vs. ITO WARD 59(6), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that in a similar succeeding year, the AO accepted the assessee's business activities and only considered commission income. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in draft discounting, filed its return declaring income. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large cash deposits and withdrawals. The AO treated credits of Rs 17,52,23,400/- as unexplained income and made an addition under Section 69A read with Section 115BE of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of unexplained income under Section 69A was justified when the assessee's business model was accepted in a subsequent year and whether Section 68 is applicable to bank credits without considering them as books of account.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 69A,Section 115BE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
PER RENU JAUHRI : The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order datred 30.12.2023, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order dated 15.12.2019. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the order needs to be quashed.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the statement
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
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
