JAINAM ORNAMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account and the subsequent addition by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed sales in its profit and loss account and that most suppliers had confirmed the transactions. The Tribunal found no specific defects in the assessee's books of account.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a jewellery dealer, faced scrutiny due to a significant increase in cash sales and deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's books of accounts under Section 145(3) and made an addition of ₹1,52,18,034/- for unexplained cash credit.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) and the consequential addition of ₹1,52,18,034/- by the AO, confirmed by the CIT(A), was justified given the facts and evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.
- Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT581 citing50 ITR 1 · 1963 · SC
- Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT69 citing97 ITR 258 · 1974 · HC
- Mahakushal Poultries v. CIT26 citing101 ITR 525 · 1975 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 08.04.2025 for the AY 2017-18. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition is against of ₹1,52,18,034/- by the ld. CIT(A) as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act by rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act.
The facts in brief are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of sale of jewellery, Gold Article, Silver, Diamond etc. and filed the return of income during the year on 31.10.2017, declaring Jainam Ornament Private Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 the total income at ₹12,35,750/-. The case of the assessee
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 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
