ANKUSH KUMAR JAIN,JHALAWAR vs. ITO, JHALAWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 167/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the protective addition was made solely on the statement of Shri Mohit Garg without any corroborative evidence linking the transaction to the assessee. The department failed to establish a connection between the PAN disclosed by Shri Mohit Garg and the assessee for the said transaction.

What were the facts?

The appellant-assessee is challenging an order where a protective addition of Rs. 9,72,62,630/- was made for assessment year 2017-18. This addition was based on a statement from Shri Mohit Garg, claiming the assessee paid him in cash for gold purchase, a transaction not reflected in the assessee's return.

What were the issues?

Whether a protective addition can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated statement of a third party without establishing a direct link to the assessee's transaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(4),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 69,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

Hearing: 14/10/2025Pronounced: 15/10/2025
18.

As a result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2025.

More judgments on Section 132(4)

All 3,819 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →