DILIP KUMAR JAIN,RAMGANJMANDI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , KOTA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that only the profit element on the unaccounted sales should be taxed, not the entire sales value. It also considered other unaccounted sales previously sustained by the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
During a search operation, a shortage of Kota stone stock was found compared to the assessee's production register. The assessee explained this as clerical errors and damages, but the authorities considered it as unaccounted sales.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire value of short stock found during a survey should be treated as unaccounted sales, or only the profit element thereof. Whether unaccounted sales found on loose papers should be set off against the shortage of stock.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 153B(1)(b),Section 139,Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)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.
- CIT v. President Industries471 citing258 ITR 654 · 2002 · HC
- CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar212 citing263 ITR 610 · 2003 · HC
- Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT132 citing304 ITR 52 · 2008 · HC
- Brij Bhushan Lal Paraduman Kumar v. CIT113 citing115 ITR 524 · 1978 · SC
- (6) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samir Synthetic Mills3 citing325 ITR 410 · 2010
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 180/JP/2024
appellate order. The addition is also on account of and with reference to passing the assessment order, it was incumbent up on the Learned Assessing Officer to have given set-off of this unaccounted sales against stock found short. Both these are co-related. The stock was found short as the same was sold unaccounted. In other words, unaccounted sales as upheld by the Learned CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 30,876/- are relatable to shortage of stock on account of which addition of Rs. 45,930/- worked out as discussed above. Considering the addition already sustained on account of unaccounted sales of Rs. 30,876/- by the ld. CIT(A) the net addition now requires to be upheld works out to Rs.15054/- (45930 – 30876). In the light of this discussion addition sustained by the Learned CIT(A) for an addition of Rs. 4,59,300/- requires to be reduced to Rs. 15054/-. In the light of the discussion so recorded the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/04/2024.
16 Dilip Kumar Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22/04/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Dilip Kumar Jain, Ramganjmandi izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Assistant Commissioner, Kota 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 180/JP/2024) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Om Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2), JaipurJaipur22 Apr 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Brij Bhushan Lal Paraduman Kumar v. CIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate claims at both assessment and appellate stages. The CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal for non-discharge of onus by the asses...
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Pawan Kumar Jhalani, JaipurJaipur17 Nov 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Brij Bhushan Lal Paraduman Kumar v. CIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition. The assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed, directing the addition to be restricted to 0.56% bas...
- Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), MumbaiMumbai23 Feb 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that only the profit attributable to unrecorded sales should be taxed, not the entire sales consideration. The assessee's declared net profit on these sales was considered reasonable.
- Income Tax Officer, Sikar vs Bhaskar Chauhan, JaipurJaipur24 Jul 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that while the entire addition of Rs. 6,64,99,498/- might not be sustainable as unexplained deposits, the profit element of these transactions should be taxed. The revenue's appeal challenging the delet...
- ACIT, Allahabad vs Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, AllahabadAllahabad30 Jun 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal restored the issue of bogus liability to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. For certain business expense disallowances, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict disallowances to 5% of the total claim, fol...
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
