RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 694/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue involved appreciation of evidence and was a pure finding of fact. It referred to various High Court judgments emphasizing that appeals involving factual appreciation do not raise substantial questions of law.

What were the facts?

The assessee received sub-contract receipts from Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these receipts as unexplained credits under Section 68 and made an addition of Rs. 6,26,68,011. The assessee contended that the sub-contract work was executed and TDS was deducted, with evidence on record.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 for unexplained credits was justified when the assessee provided evidence of sub-contract execution and TDS deduction. Whether the CIT(A) erred in remanding the issue for verification when documents were already on record.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 194C,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(30)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, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 694 & 695/JP/2025

Hearing: 21/07/2025Pronounced: 10/09/2025

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short NFAC/ CIT(A) ] for the assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17 the above-named assessee preferred the present appeals. The said orders of the ld. CIT(A), arises as against the separate order dated 22.05.2023& 31

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →