ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers

128 Taxmann.com 291Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#1097 most cited

What is ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers authority for?

An abnormal increase in declared cash sales and deposits during demonetization does not warrant an addition under Section 68, as Section 68 applies to unexplained cash credits, not disclosed sales receipts supported by stock and purchases.

101

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers · Section 68 · cash sales demonetization · unexplained cash credit · sales receipts · rejection of books of account · stock matching · Section 115BBE · addition under section 68

Also reported as

189 ITD 608

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 145(3)Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

addition u/s 68addition under section 68section 131(1)rejection of books of accountsection 145(3)section 44abpreponderance of probabilitysection 115bbsection 145section 115bsection 115bbedouble taxation

Judgments citing ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers

Dy CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Mangal Bullion P. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1407/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 1(1) 202, 2Nd Floor, Chintamani 903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm2672M M/S Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Cc 1(3) 202, 2Nd Floor, Chintamani 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm2672M

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M Kacha and Shri
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM M/s Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, CC 1(1) 202, 2nd Floor, Chintamani 903, 9th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAGCM2672M M/s Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, CC 1(3) 202, 2nd Floor, Chintamani 905, 9th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellan…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68

…and this decision of the Tribunal was also affirmed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. I.T.A. No. 352/Del/2021 (441 ITR 550). The Ld. Counsel also relied on the following decisions: 1. ACIT vs. Hirapanna Jewellers [189 ITD 608 (Visakhapatnam)] 2. Smt. Charu Aggarwal vs. DCIT [140 Taxman.com 588 (Chd.)] 3. Anantpur Kalpana vs. ITO [138 Taxman.com 141 (Bangalore)] 8. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. During the demonetization period the assessee company had deposited cash of Rs.21,69,98,000/- into its ban…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/s. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, MK 223, SM Patil Bldg, SV Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. PAN/GIR No. : AABCK5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DR Respondent by : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR Date of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order…

Shri Raj Kumar ( M/S Radhika Sales Corp ), Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (3), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Kumar (M/s Radhika Sales Vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Corp) Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar. Amritsar, 143001. [PAN:AAX[L4922E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA Respondent by Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…

Thakordas Parekh & Sons, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.167/SRT/2022 (AY 2017-18) (Hearing in Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, PAN No: AABFT 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 30.03.…

Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1540/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate
Section 285BSection 68

…rease in the cash sale and their deposit in the bank account consequent to demonization could not be basis for the rejection of account and addition u/s 68 of the Act. The Tribunal Bench at Vishakhapatnam in the case of ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewellers (2021) 189 ITD 608 (Visaks) held as under:- “7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the assessee has admitted the receipts as sales and offered for taxation. The assessing 11 Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, officer made the addition u/s 68 as , unexplained cash credit of the same amount which was accounted i…

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A.No.836/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner of 2775, 1st Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. PAN No. AADFV7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent S/Shri K. Sampath & िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"त…

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 149/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Mahesh Kumar Gupta ACIT 121 Govind Nagar East, Street No Vs. Circle-04, Jaipur 8 Amer Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGHPG 0206 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) & Sh. Rohan Sogani (…

Himalya Spinning Mills, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 2 (1), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 145Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 88/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Himalaya Spinning Mills V. Income Tax Officer, 12 KM Milestone, G. T. Ward 2(1), Amritsar Road, Manawala, Amritsar 143001, Punjab [PAN: AABFH 8548R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Vipul Arora, C.A. Respondent by Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the or…

Mesers Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 287/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. The Dy. C. I. T. Jalalabad Road, Muktasar. Circle-II, Bhatinda [PAN:AACF G1896J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. R. Respondent by: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 09.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 15.02.2023 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, J. M.: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Inc…

M/S Quasar Developers Pvt. Ltd., 202, Ridhi Sidhi Bhawan, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 69A

…iance is placed on the following cases where it is held that cash received on cash sales deposited in the bank account, duly recorded in the books of accounts cannot be added either u/s 68 or u/s 69A of the Act. ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jeweller (2021) 202 DTR 337/ 189 ITD 608 (Visakha) (Trib.) Assessee having accounted the high denomination notes deposited in bank as cash sales in its books of accounts and produced the sales bills for the same and the AO having accepted the sales & the stock and found no defect in the purchases or sales which match with the inflow/outflow of stock, addition u/s 68 could not be made in…

Naveen Kumar Sriram, Medak vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 634/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

…he cash deposited during demonetization period represented the sale proceeds, addition made is to be deleted. 6.9: Attention is also drawn to the drawn to the judgement given by the Honourable Vijaz Tribunal in the case of 'ACTT Vs Hirapanna Jewellers' [2021][128 Taxmann.com 291][Vijaz-Trib] where it was held that where the cash deposited during demonetization period represented sales made, addition is liable to be deleted. In the instant case also, the amounts deposited represented the sales made and the opening balance and hence the addition made by the AO is to be deleted.” 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the r…

ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2022[ABUPK2500L]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…T (Central)-3 V/s M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No. 68-73/2021 and various other High Courts and decision of Hon’ble ITAT Vishakhapatanam 22 Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur. Bench on identical issue in the case of ACIT v/s Hirapanna Jewellers (2021) 128 Taxmann.com 29 held that the assessee was maintaining complete stock tally, the sales were recorded in the regular books of accounts and the amount was deposited in the bank account out of the sale proceeds, therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Sales made by the assessee to cover the cash deposited in…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central)-3 V/s M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No. 68-73/2021 and various other High Courts and decision of Hon’ble ITAT Vishakhapatanam Bench on identical issue in the case of ACIT v/s Hirapanna Jewellers (2021) 128 Taxmann.com 29 held that the assessee was maintaining complete stock tally, the sales were recorded in the regular books of accounts and the amount was deposited in the bank account out of the sale proceeds, therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. 29 Shri Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur. Sales made by the asses…

Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Mangal Jewels P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1408/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 133ASection 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 1408/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Shree Mangal Jewels DCIT, CC-1(1) 903, 9th Floor Private Limited Pratishtha Bhavan Shop No. 201, 2nd M.K. Road Floor, Chintamani Old CGO Bldg Annexe Arcade, Dhanji Street Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 003. PAN : AAOCS8954B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.S. Khandelwal Department by Shri Chetan M. Kacha Date of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11.10.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the orde…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central)-3 V/s M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No. 68-73/2021 and various other High Courts and decision of Hon’ble ITAT Vishakhapatanam Bench on identical issue in the case of ACIT v/s Hirapanna Jewellers (2021) 128 Taxmann.com 29 held that the assessee was maintaining complete stock tally, the sales were recorded in the regular books of accounts and the amount was deposited in the bank account out of the sale proceeds, therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Sales made by the assessee to cover the cash deposited in…

Southern Steel, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 363/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 15.09.2022
Section 69Section 69A

…ot justified, for the transactions, resulting in the cash deposits in to the Bank, have been duly entered in the regularly maintained books of account, that the 2 business results have been accepted and that the books of accounts are not rejected. [Relying on 189 ITD 608 (Viz). 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing officer without considering the explanation given by the appellant about the sources of the cash deposits. 5. The CIT(A) erred in not looking at the law in proper perspective i.e., sec.69A, can be invoked, ONLY when the alleged money was not found recorded in t…

DCIT, Circle-2, Trichy vs. M/S. Mc Hospital, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as the Cross

ITA 11/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. M. C. Hospital Income-Tax, Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Circle-2, Trichy. Street, Velipalayam, O/O The Joint Nagapattinam, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tamil Nadu-611001. Tax, Range-2, No. 100, (Pan: Aapfm2058R) Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 6/Chny/2022 In Ita No.11/Chny/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M. C. Hospital Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Income-Tax, Street, Velipalayam, Circle-2, Trichy. Nagapattinam, Vs. O/O The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu-611001. Of Income Tax, Range-2, No. (Pan: Aapfm2058R) 100, Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Revenue/Appellant By : Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, Jcit Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri K. P. Dewani, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No.535/2019-20/Cit(A0-1/Try Dated 23.09.2020 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Trichy U/S. 143(3) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…nes and hospital receipts, cannot be brought to tax at the hands of the assessee again which will otherwise lead to taxing the same amount twice. In this respect, coordinate bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers & Anr. [2021] 189 ITD 608 (Visakhapatnam) held that – “9. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration of all the facts and the circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the cash receipts represent the sales which the assessee has rightly offered for taxation. We have gone through the trading account and find that there was suffic…

A.C.Ramasami, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 521/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ch means, the sale proceeds were offered and admitted as income; hence the AO is not permitted to make the same amount as addition u/s 68 of the Act, which amount to double addition once as sales and secondly as unexplained cash credit. [Reliance is placed on 189 ITD 608 (Viz) and ITA No:9901/Del/2019 dr.24/03/2021] And for other reasons that may adduced at the time of hearing, your appellant prays that the appeal be admitted, considered and justice be rendered. As evident, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of certain addition in the impugned order. 2. The Ld. AR assailed the addition of Rs.8.85 Lacs as s…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी सुधांशु "ीवा"तव, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 310/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt Charu Aggarwal बनाम The DCIT H.No. 123-C, Model Town Central Circle Patiala-147001- Punjab Patiala-147001, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKPA9875F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka…