SMT. JABERBEN GAMANBHAI DESAI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4890/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 April 2026AY 2011-1210 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee's return for AY 2011-12 was selected for scrutiny, leading to five additions by the AO for unexplained cash credits, agriculture income, gift, and sale proceeds of shares. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds 1, 2, 3, and 4, deleting the additions as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for loans from her husband and sons, and for agricultural income and gift. For ground 5, the addition was restricted to the short-term capital gain.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) as unexplained cash credits, agricultural income, and gift were justified based on the evidence provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 64(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing)

Smt. JaberbenGamanbhai Desai ITO, 42(1)(2), Mumbai, 602, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Evershine Vs KautilyaBhavan, BandraKurla Embassy, Veera Desai Road, Complex, Bandra East, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400101. Mumbai – 400051. [PAN : AMPPD5995A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Assessee by Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, CA Revenue by Shri B. Laxmikanth, Sr. DR Date of Institution 04.08.2025 Date of hearing 28.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 24.04.2026

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld.

CIT(A/ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara dated 05.06.2025 for Assessment Year

(AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,31,000/- under Section 68 made by the learned AO as unexplained cash credit without appreciating the fact that the same is genuine loan received from her husband.

2.

The learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of agriculture income of Rs.85,000/- made by the learned AO as une

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,634 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →