ITO, PHALODI vs. VARSHA MILLS, KHICHAN

ITA 197/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)18 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the stock valuation was justified based on accounting principles for damaged goods, and the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's relocation due to bank possession and the nature of their cash-rich business.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO. The AO had added back Rs. 2,79,03,981/- for stock valuation and Rs. 3,36,49,500/- for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting additions related to stock valuation and unexplained cash deposits during demonetization.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 145(3),Section 28

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual), Smt. Runi Pal – CIT-DR (Virtual)
Hearing: 29.01.2026

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Revenue against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as NFAC/CIT(A)] dated 07.02.2024 with respect to Assessment Year 2017-18 challenging therein decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s 69A on account of un-explained cash deposits during demonetization period and by invoking Provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act.

2.

The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,79,03,981/- made by AO by invoking provisions of section 145(3) when assesse failed to submit documentary evidences in support of NRV of guar gum adopted by

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →