ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. SHRISANJAY KAUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

ITA 31/LKW/2023Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 January 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)12 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act does not extend to third parties from whom documents are not seized. The Tribunal found no independent material to link the assessee to the transactions mentioned in the seized documents.

What were the facts?

During a search on Amit Shukla, loose papers were found detailing transactions with 'Sanjay Bhai', which the AO identified as the assessee, Sanjay Kumar Agrawal. The AO added Rs. 3 Crores to the assessee's income based on these entries, alleging an unexplained cash loan.

What were the issues?

Whether additions can be made to a third party's income based on documents seized from another person, and if presumptions under search and seizure provisions apply to such third parties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 132(4A),Section 292C,Section 153A,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Hearing: 27.10.2025Pronounced: 20.01.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)- 4, Kanpur dated 14.11.2022 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeals of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO passed under section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- made u/s 69A by the AO ignoring the fact that such addition was made by the AO on the basis of entries found on these loose papers seized from the possession of such a person who was having business relations with all persons named therein including assessee. 2

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →