SHRI SHAH AFROZE HOSSAIN,BHAGALPUR vs. DY. CIT, CENT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that applying a GP rate on seized turnover for brick kiln business was unjustified. A net profit rate of 16% was deemed appropriate for undisclosed turnover. The addition for unexplained money introduced was deleted due to sufficient cash availability. The Section 50C issue was remanded. The addition for unexplained expenditure was deleted due to lack of nexus and the principle of telescoping.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2022-23. A search and seizure operation was conducted, leading to additions by the Assessing Officer for undisclosed business income, unexplained money, under Section 50C, and unexplained expenditure. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, restricting some additions and restoring the Section 50C issue.
What were the issues?
Sustenance of additions for undisclosed business income, unexplained money, Section 50C, and unexplained expenditure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 132,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 50C,Section 50C(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘PATNA’ BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Patna-3 (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 22.10.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2022–23 declaring a total income of ₹75,56,770, comprising the income from business of ₹6,54,569, long- term capital gains: ₹49,60,293 and income from other
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 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026