MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

ITA 637/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 March 2024AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of loose sheets and unsigned entries without corroborative evidence. The AO must ascertain undisclosed income from seized material and consider net profit rates, not gross receipts.

What were the facts?

During a search, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income based on loose sheets and note pads, treating them as undisclosed business income and unexplained investments. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made based on loose sheets and non-speaking documents are sustainable without corroborative evidence and proper estimation of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69,Section 69B,Section 132,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(18)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, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R
For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Hearing: 01.02.2024Pronounced: 22.03.2024

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals by assessee are directed by different orders of NFAC for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19 having common date dated 23.5.2022. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in all these appeals are common in nature, except change in figures. We consider grounds in ITA No.636/Bang/2023, which reads as follows:

1.

The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji erred in passing the Order in the manner he did.

2.

The ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji erred in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.6,25,000 as undisclosed business

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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →