INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 165/JPR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 November 2022AY 2017-1859 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including sales bills, stock registers, and VAT returns, to substantiate the genuineness of the sales.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,03,00,000/- to the assessee's income, treating cash deposits made during the demonetization period as undisclosed income. The assessee claimed these deposits were from genuine cash sales accumulated over time.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made during demonetization, claimed as sales proceeds, were genuine and adequately supported by evidence, or constituted undisclosed income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(20)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, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 165/JP/2022

Hearing: 27/09/2022Pronounced: 22/11/2022

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →