JYPORE MANUFACTURING JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 432/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 June 2025AY 2018-1962 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding ground number 1, the Tribunal did not explicitly address the contention that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order. However, by allowing the appeal on other grounds, it implicitly found the CIT(A)'s order to be unsatisfactory. Concerning ground number 2, the Tribunal did not specifically discuss the addition of Rs. 6,57,521/- on account of excess cash. Regarding ground number 3, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition made under Section 69B for excess stock. The reasoning provided in the latter part of the judgment, though seemingly related to a different issue (land purchase under Section 69B), emphasizes that the burden is on the revenue to establish that more consideration was paid than shown. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's director admitted to excess stock being purchased from unaccounted income and surrendered it, the assessee later retracted this surrender. However, the Tribunal, in its final operative part, allowed the appeal on ground no. 3, respectfully following the binding precedent of M/s Jewels Emporium vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur (DBITA No. 43/2021), and directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 69B.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., is challenging an order dated March 19, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Jaipur-4. This order was passed against an assessment order dated April 17, 2021, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. During a survey under Section 133A on March 9, 2018, excess cash of Rs. 6,57,521/- and excess stock valued at Rs. 7,15,33,296/- were found. The assessee's director initially surrendered these amounts as income, but later retracted the surrender, claiming it was forced. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the excess cash to the total income under Section 69A and charged tax under Section 115BBE. The AO also made an addition for the excess stock.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in not passing a speaking order, rendering his directions unclear and confusing? 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,57,521/- made by the AO on account of excess cash found during the survey? 3. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 7,15,33,296/- made by the AO on account of excess stock found during the survey, which the assessee claims is a valuation difference? Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order, making his directions unclear. - The surrender of excess cash and stock during the survey was forced under pressure and misrepresentation, and the assessee has retracted this surrender. - The excess stock found is merely a valuation difference. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions on these specific grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133A,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)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,

For Appellant: Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /
Hearing: 27/05/2025Pronounced: 25/06/2025

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM By way of present appeal the assessee challenges the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur -4 [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 19.03.2025 for assessment year 2018-19. The said order of the Id. CIT(A) arises as against the order dated 17.04.2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for Short Act

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 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →