INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(9), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MAYUR DHIRAJLAL TALSANIYA, BHAVNAGAR

ITA 2428/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessment was reopened based on information regarding an alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 54,54,942/- from Shri Shripal Vora. However, no addition was made on this specific ground. Instead, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,18,90,480/- under Section 68 for unexplained credits in the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., held that where no addition is made on the ground on which the assessment was reopened, the AO cannot make an addition on a different ground. Therefore, the impugned addition could not have been made in the reassessment proceedings. The addition of Rs. 1,18,90,480/- was deleted by the CIT(A) and this deletion was upheld. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessment was reopened based on information that the assessee had availed an accommodation entry of Rs. 54,54,942/- from Shri Shripal Vora. During reassessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed aggregate credits of Rs. 1,18,90,480/- in the assessee's ING Vysya Bank account. The assessee explained these as business proceeds, advances, and short-term loans. However, the AO, finding no documentary evidence, added the entire amount of Rs. 1,18,90,480/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Notably, no addition was made regarding the alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 54,54,942/- which formed the basis for reopening. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that it was on a different issue than the one for which the assessment was reopened. The Revenue is aggrieved by this deletion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,18,90,480/- under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash credits, when the assessee could not furnish supporting documentary evidence for such credits appearing in the bank account? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 68). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not seeking a remand report for verifying additional evidence produced by the assessee during appellate proceedings? (Question of procedure and fact). 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had availed accommodation entries from a concern controlled by Shri Shripal Vora? (Question of fact, turning on Section 68). Assessee's contentions (supported by Revenue's arguments before the Tribunal): The assessment was reopened based on an alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 54,54,942/- from Shri Shripal Vora, which the assessee denied. No addition was made on this ground. The addition of Rs. 1,18,90,480/- was on a different issue (unexplained credits in bank account) and thus unsustainable, relying on CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani and CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. Revenue's contentions (supported by AO's actions): The AO noticed substantial credits in the bank account, and the assessee failed to substantiate their nature and source with documentary evidence. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was justified. The CIT(A) should have sought a remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr DR
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

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

- This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,18,90,480/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits appearing in the assessee's bank account maintained wit

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 →