VIJAY RATAN SONI,DIDWANA, NAGAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGAUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 168/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the flat 10% disallowance of ornament making charges excessive, restricting it to Rs.75,000/- as reasonable, considering it a routine business expenditure. Regarding the unexplained cash deposit, while acknowledging the assessee had a sufficient cash balance, the nondisclosure of one deposit and lack of satisfactory explanation led to an adverse inference, but the addition was reduced to Rs.50,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the wholesale gold and bullion business, filed a return for AY 2017-18. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large cash deposits during demonetization and an increase in sales with decreased profitability. The AO disallowed Rs.1,50,583/- as 10% of ornament making charges and added Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Disallowance of ornament making charges and addition of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/08/2025 )

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →