CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd.

212 ITR 417High Court1995#7051 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 68Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 66audi alteram partemaddition under section 68addition u/s 68section 158bcsection 44abrejection of books of accountshare capital and share premiumsection 145(3)section 115bbsection 115b

Judgments citing CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. VAIBHAV GINNING SPINNING MILL PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

In the result, the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 826/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 826/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Dcit Vs. Vaibhav Ginning & Spinning Central Circle-2, Rajkot Mill Private Limited “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, National Highway – 27, Gondal Rajkot-360001 Rajkot Highway At Bhojpara, Gondal, Gujarat - 360311 Pan/Gir No.: Aadcv4397D (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/04/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…lders vide ITA No. 908/AHD/2019 dated 27 April, 2022 wherein on similar facts addition made by Assessing Officer u/s.69A was deleted. It is relevant to refer to decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Associated Transport Pvt Limited 212 ITR 417 wherein it is held as under.- "Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys Assessment year 1979-80-Assessing Officer treated high denomination notes worth Rs. 81,000 as unexplained money, disbelieving assessee's explanation as to how he came into possession of same and added same in income of assessee and also imposed penalty Trib…

KDJP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5900/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Kdjp Steels Private Limited, Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Plot No.50, Flat No.A-201, Delhi. Parshav Vihar, Patpar Ganj, Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aacck6905F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate; Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…e, which cash represented the sale consideration and such cash sales represented the turnover of the assessee which turnover had duly been accepted. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. reported in 212 ITR 417 (Cal) b) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 288 (SC) c) S.R. Venkataraman vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 807 (Kar) 5.2 Ld. AO having accepted the books of accountsof assessee cannot even discard a part of trading account i.e. cash sales in the instant case. Ld. AO has not even disputed such cash sales, had it been so then he wou…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. LA SOLITAIRE JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradeputy Commissioner Of Vs La Solitaire Jewels Income Tax, Private Limited Room No. 316A, C. R. 2706, Bank Street Road, Building, I. P. Estate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- New Delhi 110005 Delhi Pan: Aaacl9483H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Mayankpatwari, Adv & Sh. Akashojha, Adv Revenue By Sh. Gouranga Chandra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 68

…isprove the condition of the assessee. Suspicion however strong it may be, it should not be decided against the assessee without disproving the sales with tangible evidence. 7.1. In the case of CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. [1996] 84 Taxman 146/[1995] 212 ITR 417 (Cal). The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Calcutta High Court again…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. SATISH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

ITA 2447/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On Satish Kumar X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. Pan No.Aнерк4309В Shri Pramod Jain, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.08.2025 26.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per C.N. Prasad, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.03.2024 For The Ay 2017-18 In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period. 2. Ld. Dr Made The Following Submissions: (I) The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Trading Of Ghee & Oil Under The Proprietorship M/S Phool Chand Hari Kishan. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,58,120/- For The

Section 115BSection 68

…and such income is accepted by the Assessing Officer to be the income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 20. CIT VS. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 212 ITR 417 (Cal.) (HC) Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that if the assessee is able to show sufficient cash Balance, addition on account of deposit of High Denomination was rightly deleted. 21. Asstt. CIT VS. M/s Hirapanna Jewellers, ITA No. 253/Viz/2020, dated 12.05.2021 Hon'ble Vishakhapatnam ITAT held that that the cash receipts represent the sales whic…

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "I.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nLUCKNOW BENCH 'B', LUCKNOW\n\nBEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nI.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024\n Assessment Year:2017-18\n\nKashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Vs. ACIT,\nLimited,\nSitapur.\nC/o Sanjay Saxena,\n12, Pratap Enclave, Bisrat\nG. T. Road, Shahjahanpur.\nPAN:AACCK3717F\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\n\nAppellant by\nShri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate\nRespondent by\nShri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (D.R.)\n\nORDER\n\nPER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:Α.Μ.\n\n(A) This ap…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 684/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 68

…ssee. Suspicion however strong it may be, it should not be decided against the assessee without disproving the sales with tangible evidence. . CO-9/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 25 7.1 In the case of CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. [1996] 84 Taxman 146/(1995] 212 ITR 417 (Cal.) the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Calcutta High Court again…

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…that "Addition u/s 68 could not be made in respect of the amount which was found to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to them". (b) CIT vs Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. on 4 January, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 212 ITR 417 Cal. 15 MS. PRIYANKA SURANA VS ITO, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR “6. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand. In the books of account of the assessee, cash balance was usually more than Rs. 81,000. There is no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources. It is not a fit case for treating the amount of R…

RAKESH MALHOTRA,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3571/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3571/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…sprove the condition of the assessee. Suspicion however strong it may be, it should not be decided against the assessee without disproving the sales with tangible evidence. 7.1. In the case of CIT Vs. Assolciated Transport (P.) Ltd. 1996] 84 Taxman 146/[1995] 212 ITR 417 (Cal). The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Calcutta High Court again…

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…Hirapanna Jewellers, Vishakhapatnam ITA M/s Hirapanna Jewellers, Vishakhapatnam ITA No M/s Hirapanna Jewellers, Vishakhapatnam ITA 253/2020 for AY 17-18. 253/2020 for AY Smt Harshila Harshila Chordia 298 ITR349 CIT vs Associated Associated Transport (P) Ltd 212 ITR 417 417 Heera Steel Ltd v/s ITO 4 ITJ 437 Nagpur ITAT Heera Steel Ltd v/s ITO 4 ITJ 437 Nagpur ITAT And many others….. And many others….. The facts of of the above referred cases are different different from the present case. In the present case the source of cash sales is doubtful and the case. In the present case the source of cash sales is doubt…

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…that "Addition u/s 68 could not be made in respect of the amount which was found to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to them". (b) CIT vs Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. on 4 January, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 212 ITR 417 Cal. “6. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand. In the books of account of the assessee, cash balance was usually more than Rs. 81,000. There is no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources. It is not a fit case for treating the amount of Rs. 81,000 as concealed income of the assessee and…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…he Act. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements rendered on identical facts of the case as that of the assessee. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Associated Transport (P) Ltd. [1996] 84 Taxman 146/[1995] 212 ITR 417 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessec, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Hon'ble Calcutta…

MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…he Act. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements rendered on identical facts of the case as that of the assessee. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Associated Transport (P) Ltd. [1996] 84 Taxman 146/[1995] 212 ITR 417 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessec, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Hon'ble Calcutta…

CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…o make the addition on the presumption that cash declared consists of only Rs. 1000 or Rs. 500 Notes. The same has been upheld in the case laws as below.  Narendra G. Goradia v. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (HC)  CIT v. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 212 ITR 417 (Cal) (HC)  CIT v. Laxmandas Bhatiya (1996) 217 ITR 878 (MP) (HC)  Bal Velbal v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 130 (SC)  Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (HC)  ITO V. ITAT (1998) 229 ITR 651 (Pa) (HC)  GK Padmaraju v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 412 (AP) (HC) vi) Additionally the Appellant would like to point out as under High Denomination Notes…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, 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

…he Act. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements rendered on identical facts of the case as that of the assessee. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Associated Transport (P) Ltd. [1996] 84 Taxman 146/[1995] 212 ITR 417 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessec, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Hon'ble Calcutta…

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

…see. Suspicion however strong it may be, it should not be decided against the assessee without disproving the sales with tangible evidence. 12 Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, 7.1. In the case of CIT Vs. Assolciated Transport (P.) Ltd. 1996] 84 Taxman 146/[1995] 212 ITR 417 (Cal). The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Calcutta High Court again…

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

…isprove the condition of the assessee. Suspicion however strong it may be, it should not be decided against the assessee without disproving the sales with tangible evidence. 7.1 In the case of CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. [1996] 84 Taxman 146/[1995] 212 ITR 417 (Cal.) the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Calcutta High Court again…