Skip to main content

Amit Agrawal v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.)

Case No: ITA Nos.470, 471, 472, 473 & 474/RPR/2026 and ITA Nos.489, 490, 491, 492 & 493/RPR/2026
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench
Date: 21 Sep 2026

Parties Involved

appellantAmit Agrawal
respondentThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.)

Facts Summary

The assessee, Amit Agrawal, is a resident individual engaged in the business of trading coal and coal-related products. A search and seizure operation was conducted on his premises, leading to the reopening of his case under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,95,31,900/- for the year under consideration, including undisclosed income of Rs.2,41,32,536/-. The assessee made a total disclosure of income of Rs.8.70 Cr. in various years starting from A.Y. 2018-19 to 2022-23. The assessee also offered Rs.33.01 Lakhs to cover up any income leakages. The assessee had made cash transactions relating to sales, purchases, and fund transfer activities that were not recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee surrendered Rs.2,12,62,400/- as gross profit on unrecorded sales, Rs.23,70,136/- as commission income, and Rs.5,00,000/- as additional surrender to cover up discrepancies found in the search operation.…

Decision in favour of

Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue

Legal Issues

  • 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal and considering taxation at the normal rate instead of charging under section 115BBE, without appreciating that the transactions reflecting the aforesaid amount were not recorded in books of accounts and the surrender of undisclosed income or subsequent offering of these transactions in the return of income subsequent to search operations, by the assessee do not make such transactions his disclosed business/income?
  • 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.76,46,552/- made on account of undisclosed purchases by the AO as unexplained money?
  • 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law in treating the addition of Rs.3,37,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money being cash loan taken, as income from other sources?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Opakhya LogoOpakhya

AI-powered tax-litigation platform. Find precedents using natural language, draft submissions in minutes, and run your entire case repository from a single secure workspace.

© 2025 Opakhya. All rights reserved.

Core Features

Additional Features

  • Smart Comments
  • Export Options
  • Quick Copy
  • Analytics Dashboard
Version 2.0.1•Last updated: October 2025
Powered by AI & Machine Learning