SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2194/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 August 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to disclose substantial cash deposits in their return of income. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 45,68,500/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, which was sustained by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under Section 68 without properly considering the assessee's evidence and submissions, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 17.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “B” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. //True Copy//

आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER,

Assistant Registrar, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण,/ ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →