RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount on account of excess stock should be treated as business income and not as unexplained investment. Consequently, Section 69B and Section 115BBE were not applicable, and normal tax rates should apply.
What were the facts?
During a survey under Section 133A, excess stock of Rs. 9,08,100 was found at the assessee's PVC pipe manufacturing business premises. The assessee's brother surrendered Rs. 10,00,000 as income from business to cover the discrepancy.
What were the issues?
Whether the excess stock found during a survey, for which income was surrendered, should be treated as unexplained investment or business income. Applicability of Section 69B and Section 115BBE to such surrendered income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 133A,Section 69B,Section 115BBE,Section 139(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250(6),Section 253
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)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.
- Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT136 citing247 ITR 290 · 2001 · HC · Read judgment
- AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner115 citing38 Taxmann 190 · 1998 · SC
- Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. DCIT54 citing131 TTJ 1 · 2010 · ITAT
- Kim Pharma (P) Ltd. v. CIT47 citing35 Taxmann.com 456 · 2013 · HC
- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Deccan Jewellers Ltd.34 citing438 ITR 131 · 2021 · HC
- Famina Knit Fabs v. ACIT33 citing176 ITD 246 · 2019 · ITAT
- CIT & Anr. v. S.K. Srigiri And Bros.32 citing298 ITR 13 · 2008 · HC
- CIT v. Anirudh Narayan Agrawal20 citing219 Taxmann 126 · 2013 · HC
- Dhanush General Stores v. CIT4 citing20 Taxmann.com 853 · 2012 · HC
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order PER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee who is an individual and has been engaged in the business of manufacturing PVC pipes under the business name S.K. Industries. The residential status of assessee is that of a person “resident” in India. The appeal is filed before this Hon’ble Tribunal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
The assessee is aggr
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Shri Vishwakarama Jewellers, Akola vs DCIT Akola Circle, AkolaNagpur22 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on Famina Knit Fabs v. ACIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the survey was part of the assessee's business stock and not an undisclosed investment. Therefore, it should be treated as business income and not under the deeming pr...
- M/S Jashan Finlease Ltd., Khanna vs DCIT, CC-1, LudhianaChandigarh28 Mar 2024Allowed
Also relies on Famina Knit Fabs v. ACIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount, though unrecorded at the time of survey, was directly related to the assessee's regular finance business. Therefore, it could not be taxed under the deeming provisions of Se...
- Rav Sharan Singh, Patiala vs ACIT, C.C., PatialaChandigarh30 Oct 2024Allowed
Also relies on Famina Knit Fabs v. ACIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the excess stock represents suppressed business profits and should be treated as business income, not deemed income under Section 69. Therefore, Section 115BBE is not applicable.
- Mrs. Kiran Bala, Ludhiana vs DCIT, CC-III, LudhianaChandigarh26 Mar 2024Allowed
Also relies on Famina Knit Fabs v. ACIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income should be treated as business income, not unexplained investment under Sections 69A and 69B. Consequently, Section 115BBE was not applicable.
- M/S A.P. Knit Fab, Ludhiana vs DCIT CC-3, LudhianaChandigarh15 Feb 2024Allowed
Also relies on Famina Knit Fabs v. ACIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the excess stock represented business income and not unexplained investment. Therefore, Section 69B and Section 115BBE were not applicable, and normal tax rates should apply.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
