SATYA RETAIL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-4(1)(1) NOW ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD

ITA 392/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 October 2026AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay was due to the email ID and phone number on the portal belonging to an erstwhile accountant, leading to the assessee being unaware of notices from the CIT(A). Regarding the addition of Rs. 25,70,000/-, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised grounds challenging the confirmation of this addition by the CIT(A). The specific grounds raised by the assessee questioned the basis of the addition, citing lack of cogent evidence, reliance on material collected behind the assessee's back, and denial of cross-examination. The judgment, however, does not record the Tribunal's decision on the merits of the addition or the grounds raised. The operative part of the judgment is limited to condoning the delay. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Satya Retail Pvt Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Ahmedabad, dated 26.08.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal arose from proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had declared a loss of Rs. 36,211/-. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee received share application money of Rs. 23,46,30,000/-. The AO concluded that the assessee was a shell company providing accommodation entries on commission and routed Rs. 25.70 crores through its bank accounts. The AO estimated commission income at 1% of the routed amount, making an addition of Rs. 25,70,000/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 25,70,000/- on account of undisclosed commission income, based on surmises and conjectures without cogent material evidence, and without adhering to the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and the Companies Act, 1956? Assessee's contention: The addition was confirmed without independent or cogent material evidence. The assessee followed due process under Section 68 and the Companies Act, 1956. The AO relied on information received from ACIT, Mumbai, and statements recorded during search proceedings without providing copies or an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice as per judicial pronouncements. The assessee also highlighted that share application money was received through account payee cheques from specific companies, with proper share application forms, confirmations, and allotment, fulfilling all formalities. Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI SANJAY KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Rathi, SR-DR
Hearing: 24.08.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 26.08.2025 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2012-13 in the proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

There was delay of 104 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation application explaining the reason for delay. It was submitted that the e-mail-id and phone number on the portal was of the Satya Retail Pvt Ltd V

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 →