KAMLESHKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 419/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 September 2026AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 43,37,745/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received loans totaling Rs. 42,00,000/- from a corporate entity on 03.11.2012 and 05.11.2012. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan parties were not disputed. Additionally, the receipt of the loan, its repayment, and the repayment of interest were also not doubted. Based on these facts, the Tribunal found no basis to affirm the Assessing Officer's decision that the loan was obtained from a bogus entry provider. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kamleshkumar Patel, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) dated 17.12.2025. The assessment year in question is 2013-14. The appeal challenged the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 43,37,745/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning loans received by the assessee. The assessee had received Rs. 25,00,000/- on 03.11.2012 and Rs. 17,00,000/- on 05.11.2012 from a corporate entity. The total loan amount of Rs. 45,50,000/- along with interest of Rs. 3,46,466/- was repaid on 29.05.2015. The ground relating to the reopening of assessment was not pressed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 43,37,745/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of loans received by the assessee is justified? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan parties were not in question. Furthermore, the receipt of the loan, its repayment, and the repayment of interest were not doubted by the authorities. Therefore, the AO's conclusion that the loan was taken from a bogus entry provider could not be affirmed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

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 Mehul K. Patel, Ar
For Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 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 17.12.2025, under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2013-

14.2.

The solitary grievance raised by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.43,37,745/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act in respect of loan taken by the assessee.

3.

The ground relating

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 →