ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A of the IT Rules and without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal found the impugned adjudications to be devoid of evidence and lacking merit.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions made on account of alleged cashback from payments to karigars. The addition was based on search and seizure action and statements recorded from karigars and partners.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without proper procedure and whether the addition made by the AO was sustainable without proper cross-examination and documentary evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 133A,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250,Section 251
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide 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.
- Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT396 citing30 ITR 181 · 1956 · SC
- CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.196 citing231 Taxmann 384 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT186 citing100 Taxmann 404 · 1998 · HC
- 97 Taxmann 3106 citing97 Taxmann 310 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, GOA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
PER BENCH(3:2); This bunch of five appeals instituted u/s 253(2) of the Act by the appellant Revenue impugns separate orders all dt. 03/03/2025
passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter]
ITAT-Panaji M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned assessing officer [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] all dt.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S Potdar Brothers, BelagaviPanaji18 Nov 2025Remanded
Also relies on Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A of the IT Rules and without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal found the impugned adjudications to...
- Income Tax Officer, Panaji vs Anil Raghuvir Sirsat, Parra BardezPanaji24 Apr 2025Remanded
Also relies on Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the Ld. NFAC violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by admitting additional evidence without recording satisfaction or providing the AO an opportunity for verification and comments. Conse...
- Jagat Singh Rathore, Tonk vs ITO WD 7(2), JaipurJaipur18 Sept 2023Remanded
Also relies on Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, finding it necessary for substantial justice. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and oth...
- Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), JaipurJaipur11 Sept 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the addition of the full amount was not sustainable and directed the AO to tax only the peak credit available with the assessee during the year.
- ITO, Rohtak vs Sh. Ram Kishan, HaryanaDelhi13 Feb 2017Dismissed
Also relies on Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT and 1 other authority
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including an agreement to sell land and an affidavit from the purchaser, to explain th...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
