SRI LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to verify stock details based on updated audited books of accounts, as the initial assessment was based on un-updated books.
What were the facts?
During a survey operation, incriminating material including cash loan vouchers and personal diaries were impounded. The assessee was unable to explain loans amounting to Rs. 3,49,73,000. The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained cash credits and stock difference.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of stock difference is justified when the books of accounts were not updated at the time of survey. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh verification of stock based on updated financials.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative [“Ld. DR”] heavily relied upon the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and argued in support of the same.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, we find from the page No.94 of the paper book submitted by the assessee, the Profit & Loss Account remains unupdated as on the date of survey ie., 19/02/2020. Considering the submissions made by the Ld. AR, following the principles of natural justice, we find it deem fit to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO to verify the stock details based on the updated audited books of accounts and the return 7 of income filed by the assessee for the AY 2020-21. We also direct the assessee to produce the records regarding the stock as well as sales & purchases before the Ld. AO for verification. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- 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