PANKISH DHAWAN,TALWANDI BHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR CANTT

ITA 1074/ASR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 September 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the entire addition was based on information from a search in the case of M/s Angels Immigration and Educational Consultants Pvt. Ltd., and the Assessing Officer had no independent corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee paid Rs. 20,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer himself acknowledged in the assessment order that no material was received to corroborate the higher payment, despite communicating with the jurisdictional AO of M/s Angels Immigration. The Tribunal also observed that the fundamental condition for invoking Section 68, which requires the amount to be found credited in the assessee's books of account, was not satisfied. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pankish Dhawan, is an individual resident. For Assessment Year 2018-19, he filed a return declaring Nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 based on information from the Investigation Wing, Chandigarh. This information, gathered during a search in the case of M/s Angels Immigration and Educational Consultants Pvt. Ltd., suggested the assessee had paid Rs. 20,00,000/- to the company for visa arrangements. The assessee admitted approaching the company and paying Rs. 10,00,000/-, explaining the source. The AO, however, added back Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 68, treating it as unexplained. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, confirmed this addition. The assessee is now appealing this order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law, considering the assessee admitted to paying Rs. 10,00,000/- and explained its source, while the addition was based solely on information from a search in another entity's case without independent corroboration. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that he paid only Rs. 10,00,000/- and provided documentary evidence for its source, which the AO accepted. The AO lacked independent corroborative evidence to prove the payment of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Furthermore, the addition under Section 68 was incorrect as the amount was not credited in the assessee's books of account. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the information gathered during the search and seizure operation in the case of M/s Angels Immigration and Educational Consultants Pvt. Ltd., which indicated a payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 132,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CA
For Respondent: Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. DR

PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.:

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 13-08-2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”).

2 Asst. Year: 2018-19

3.

At the outset, we must observe that the assessee has made a request for early hearing of the appeal. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection to assessee’s request. Hence, with the consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposed of.

4.

Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual.

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 →