ABDULAZIM ABDULRAHEMAN PATHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD
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 was not in dispute. Since the assessee provided a summary of the source of funds and their utilization, and this evidence was not contested by the Revenue, the Tribunal found no basis for the addition. The ratio decidendi is that if the source of payment for credit card expenses is demonstrably from the books of a corporate entity in which the assessee is a director, and this evidence is not disputed, then no addition can be made on that count. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with no specific issue left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Abdulazim Abdulraheman Pathan, an individual and Director of Zoya Bangles Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.12.2025. This order was passed under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The dispute centers on an addition of Rs. 26,76,600/- made by the Revenue, alleging that this amount was paid in cash towards credit card expenditure. The assessee contended that these funds were utilized from the books of the corporate entity, Zoya Bangles Pvt. Ltd. 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 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the amounts utilized for credit card payments were sourced from the books of Zoya Bangles Pvt. Ltd., where he is a Director. The assessee provided a summary of the source of funds and their utilization towards credit card payments. 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 any authorities/precedents relied upon by the Revenue in this regard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
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-
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–
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.
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
