INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEEPAK BABURAO VISPUTE, KOPARGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2399/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 February 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)14 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the excess stock was directly related to the assessee's jewelry business and no other activities were detected, it should be taxed as business income, not as an unexplained investment. The Tribunal also reversed the CIT(A)'s partial relief on certain expense disallowances.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee, a jeweler, declared excess stock of Rs. 4,42,86,847/-. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained investment under Section 69B and taxed it under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, treating it as regular business income.

What were the issues?

Whether excess stock declared during a survey should be taxed as business income or unexplained investment. Whether disallowances of expenses made by the AO were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 69B,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S Bhandari
For Respondent: Smt Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

1. 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2.

More judgments on Section 133A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →