MAHESH SURESHCHANDRA KEDIA,AKOLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD - 2, AKOLA, AKOLA

ITA 375/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 August 2026AY 2014-20158 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan, and that the cash deposit additions were justified by the evidence. The unsecured loan mismatch was explained by a grouping error in accounting software.

What were the facts?

The assessee had not filed returns for six years and was a partner in a firm. The case was reopened, and the assessee filed a return of Rs. 4,970. Additions were made for a loan, cash deposits, and unmatched unsecured loans.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on account of unsecured loans, cash deposits, and investment in immovable property were justified based on the evidence provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Bhavesh M. Moryani, Adv
Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.03.2026 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. „The P a g e | 2 Mahesh Sureshchandra Kedia (AY: 2014-15) FAA) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1087749634(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 27.09.2021 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, for AY: 2014-15. 2. Heard and perused the reco

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 →