BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

21 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi710Mumbai662Jaipur332Ahmedabad303Bangalore209Chennai199Hyderabad163Chandigarh146Surat116Pune116Kolkata106Indore98Cochin91Rajkot74Lucknow54Amritsar51Nagpur47Raipur36Visakhapatnam35Agra32Jodhpur27Guwahati24Patna21Ranchi19Allahabad18Cuttack15Jabalpur10Varanasi6Panaji5Dehradun4Karnataka3SC3Rajasthan1Kerala1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 69A19Addition to Income18Section 115B17Section 6817Section 14814Section 25012Cash Deposit11Section 1479Section 142(1)9Demonetization

KUMARI SANJANA SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 47/PAT/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumari Sanjana Singh................................…...........................……….……Appellant W/O Shiv Nararyan Singh, Harsh Egg Centre, Near Anishabad Golambar, Manik Chand Talab, Anishabad, Patna-800002. [Pan: Cleps6120G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), Patna.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 27, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Patna-2 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69Section 695Section 69A

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 271A8
Unexplained Cash Credit7
Section 69C
Section 69D

68, section 69, section 69A, section 695, section 69C or section 69D. I.T.A. No.47/Pat/2020 Assessment

ROHIT KHANDELWAL,MADHUBANI vs. AC/DCIT, CENT, CIR, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 11SSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous

MITHILESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/PAT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 127Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 153DSection 263

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

KRISHNA MOHAN ,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14, PATNA , PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 476/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Krishna Mohan Prop-M/S Maa Ambey Traders, Acit, Circle-14, Patna Maurari Complex, Karbigahiya, Patna, Bihar Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahupm5205C Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

68 to section 69, that too, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. More so, when applicability of section 69 was never within the purview of the Tribunal and not even the case of the Department. I don’t intend to deal further on the issue as to whether the Tribunal has powers to change

SANTOSH KUMAR KESHRI,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

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

ITA 226/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 226/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Santosh Kumar Keshri,………..…….…………Appellant Shop No. 3, Jaiswal Market, Sabji Mandi, Mithapur-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asapk1127E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Supriya Sharma, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 69A

section 68 of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority. 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee failed to give any explanation before the ld. Assessing Officer about the nature of source of cash deposits during the demonetization period, which was deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

69A in the hands of the assessee, and the most critical thing to be examined in this regard is explanation of the assessee with respect to these credits. There is no, and there cannot be any, dispute on the fundamental legal position that the onus is on the assessee to prove 'bonafides' or 'genuineness' of the money credited

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

ITA 519/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

69A as unexplained money and taxed as per section 115BBE, therefore, the ground on this issue was dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The issue relating to the levy of charging interest is concerned, the ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the opinion that levy of interest is mandatory as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 68Section 69A

69A read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that the opening balance of Proprietor's Capital (being the closing balance as on 31/03/2015

SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION,PANCHGACHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 565/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shankar Construction,………………..…….……Appellant Panchgachia, Panchgachia-852124, Bihar [Pan:Abofs0800R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….……..……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in construction activity. It has filed its return of income on 13th October, 2016 declaring taxable income of Rs.35,36,520/-. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter observed that

AMUL FEED PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 184/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.184/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amul Feed Pvt. Ltd……………….....…..…………………....Appellant Shakti Punj, Ashoka Vihar Biscomaum Colony, Patna, Bihar - 800007. [Pan: Aafca0769E] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Patna.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singhal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Nfac ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Passed An Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Making An Addition Of Rs.1,37,39,437 As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 69A Of The Act, Invoking The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Further Made Another Addition Of Rs.1,00,88,000 As Unexplained Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act, Again Invoking Section 115Bbe & Taxing The Same At The Rate Of 60%. 3. Aggrieved By The Said Assessment Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Ex Parte For Non-Compliance With The Notices Issued By The

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

69A of the Act, invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made another addition of Rs.1,00,88,000 as unexplained credit under section 68

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 366/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Section 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits during demonetization period as made by the Assessing Officer, then the same would result into double taxation because the same income has already been offered tax by filing return of income. The Assessing Officer has not disputed the sales and not even rejected the books of accounts. Therefore

SAWITA SHAH,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrasawita Shah, Income Tax Officer, W/O Kamal Kishor Gupta Sudi Ward 3(1), Purnia Tola, Ansari Thakur Tola, Vs Dalmapur, Baisi, Purnia, Bihar - 854315 (Pan: Gnzps0882J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

section 68 previous year savings can't be treated as unexplained income. On perusal of assessment order it is noticed that the assessing officer has specifically has mentioned that the addition is being made u/s 69A

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 249/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2 Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, Avrtar Acit, Circle-2, Patna, Bihar Vs. Building, Bisturpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1706N Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi Rakesh Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri MD AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

68 of the Act in the assessment farmed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016. 2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:- “I have carefully considered the findings of the AO in the assessment order, submission of the appellant, Remand report

BABULAL PRASAD SUJIT KUMAR,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

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

ITA 276/PAT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 276/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Babulal Prasad Sujit Kumar,……………….…Appellant Purani Bazar, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aalfb9242J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….Respondent Central Circle-Muzaffarpur, Chabdralok Bhawan, Near Chandralok Market, Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 30, 2024 O R D E R

Section 68Section 69A

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (ii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,03,565/- being the difference between the cash found on the date of survey amounting to Rsa.7,36,950/- minus sales made in cash estimated on ad hoc basis at Rs.2

SURYADEO PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ITO WARD-2 (3), SIWAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

69A of the IT Act. 5 For that the application of section 115BBE has been incorrectly applied, since the source of deposit of cash is verifiable. 6 For that the cash deposit could have been, at the most, be considered as turnover of the business and net profit @ 8% as per provisions of section 44AD should have been

JAGDAMBA ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO,2(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1), Patna Vs Pan: Aaacj 5860 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 391Section 68Section 69A

68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rs. 20,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13.” 3. Subsequent to above, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. However, no one turned up on the part of assessee since

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143Section 143(1)

68, (i.e. Rs.13,63,773/- plus Rs.2,06,932/-) and addition made for undisclosed Bank interest amounting to Rs.38,077/-)] and initiated penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

ASHOK BHAGAT,MADHEPURA vs. ITO WARD- 3 (5), SAHARSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

68 of the Act and an addition of Rs. 15,55,000/- has been made. The ld. AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 15,55,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A read with Section

LORD VISHNU CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 23/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 23/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lord Vishnu Constructions Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Private Limited Vs Patna 101, Lotus Apartment New Patliputra Colony Patna - 800013 [Pan: Aabcc5141M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna -1 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 18/10/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Through Various Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Framed U/S 263 Of The Act. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In Construction Business. The Regular Return Of Income Furnished Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass On Account Of Two Reasons, Namely, “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposit During

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT D/R
Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 69A

69A of the Act at Rs.1,02,42,000/- and assessed income at Rs. 1,24,68,481/-. Thereafter, the ld. Pr. CIT called for the assessment records under the powers conferred to him u/s 263 of the Act and observed that the assessee had made cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- each day for a total amount

JAINAM ORNAMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj2187M Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 145(3)Section 68

68 of the IT Act, 1961 amount to Rs. 1,52,18,034 is sustained. 2.3 I have gone through the assessment order as well as the written submission submitted by the appellant. The AO have asked the appellant to submit item wise stock register, name and address of parties to whom cash sale was made. But the appellant could