ABDULAZIM ABDULRAHEMAN PATHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 387/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2026AY 2017-20187 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no addition was called for on the count of cash payment towards credit card expenditure. The reasoning was based on the fact that the evidence of payment of the credit card was on record and not in dispute. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding the utilization of funds from the corporate entity was sufficient, as the payment itself was substantiated. The ratio decidendi is that if the payment is evidenced and not disputed, and the source is explained, even if it involves cash, an addition under section 68 may not be warranted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with no issue left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Abdulazim Abdulraheman Pathan, an individual, filed an appeal against the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The revenue had made an addition of Rs.26,76,600/- on the allegation that this amount was paid in cash towards credit card expenditure. The assessee contended that he is a Director of Zoya Bangles Pvt. Ltd. and the funds utilized for the credit card payment were from the corporate entity's books. The Tribunal noted that the evidence of credit card payment was on record and not in dispute.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue was justified in treating the cash payment of Rs.26,76,600/- towards credit card expenditure as an addition, under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the amounts utilized for credit card payments were from the books of the corporate entity, Zoya Bangles Pvt. Ltd., of which he is a Director. Revenue's contention: The revenue alleged that the amounts were directly paid in cash. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments or reliance on any authorities, circulars, or precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, AR
For Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 15.12.2025, under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-

18.2.

The core issue to be adjudicated is whether the Revenue was right in treating the cash payment of Rs.26,76,600/-, made towards credit card expenditure. Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

3.

Heard the arguments o

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 →