SAROJINI DEVI BUDDA,ANAKAPALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI

ITA 772/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 August 2026AY 2013-1411 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked based solely on bank passbook entries when the assessee has not maintained books of account. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's bank account showed cash credits of Rs. 28,00,000. The Assessing Officer treated these as unexplained under Section 68 as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or documentation for the same.

What were the issues?

Whether cash credits found in a bank passbook, in the absence of maintained books of account by the assessee, can be added to income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE

PER MANJUNATHA G, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1082858472(1) dated 21-Nov-2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. ITA 772/VIZ/2025 SAROJINI DEVI BUDDA

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

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 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →