What is CIT v. Jauharimal Goel authority for?

Deposits made in cash into a bank account, if unexplained, are considered undisclosed income taxable under sections 68 and 69 of the Income Tax Act. The court affirmed that such deposits can be treated as unexplained investment under section 69.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Jauharimal Goel?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jauharimal Goel (147 Taxmann 448), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jauharimal Goel come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153C, Section 194-1A.

CIT v. Jauharimal Goel (147 Taxmann 448)

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals\nof the assessee are allowed

ITA 1630/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.2178, 1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Accpa9340F\Nita No. 1613/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2017-18)\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\Nshri Sk Tulsian, Ar\Nrevenue By\Nshri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N03.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N18.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Against\Nthe Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.08.2025, 27.05.2025 For A.Y.\N2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Appeals Are Relating\Nto Same Assessee & Involves Commons Issues, Therefore All These\Nappeals Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity.\Npage 2\Nita Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\Nsushil Mitruka; Ays 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18\Nfirst Of All We Shall Take Ita No. 2178/Kol/2025 A.Y. 214-15 For\Nadjudication.\Nα.Υ. 2014-15\Nita No. 2178/Kol/2025\N2.\Nthe Issue Raised In Ground No.1 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)\Nupholding The Reopening Of Assessment, Which Was Based Upon\Nborrowed Satisfaction Without Examining The Records & Without\Napplication Of Mind & Accordingly, The Reopening Of Assessment Bas\Nbad In Law.\N2.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…7 ITR 807(Kar)\n24 Months\n2\nVinod Kimar Goel ITA 310/JP/08\n18 Months\n3.\nHemant Prabhakar ITA No.684/JP/98, 31 taxworld 198 14 Months\n4.\nR.K. Dave 94 TTJ (Jod) 19\n07 Months\n5.\nSurendra Singh ITA No.650/JP/2011\n5-9 Months\n6.\nCIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 201 CTR 54 (All)\n5-8 Months\n7.\nVeerappa Shetty ITA No.5276/M/2011\n3.5 Months\n8.\nAnupama Chaudhary ITA No. 4155/Del/2009\n3-6 Months\n9.\nTanmoy Chatterjee ITA No.1434/Kol/2009\n1 Month\n10.\nACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla, 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi)\n1-2 Months\n11.\nITA No.957/M/2009 M/s. Cellplus Telcomes\n09 Months\n21. The above judgments from various benches…