PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

ITA 955/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)14 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It found the valuation of jewellery and the application of a 4% job work rate to be reasonable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a jewellery manufacturer on a job work basis, faced reassessment proceedings initiated based on information from GST authorities and a retracted statement. Additions were made for alleged unaccounted job work charges and the valuation of seized jewellery.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated on third-party information and a retracted statement, and the correctness of additions made for job work charges and jewellery valuation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(14)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, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR) &, Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 23.02.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [herein-after referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 22.07.2024 for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 and dated 30.07.2024 for AY 2018- 19, under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2.

Since the issues involved in all the three appeals are identical and the grounds are verbatim the same except variation in figures, they were heard together and are disp

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →