PRASHANT RAMESH DANDVATE,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 970/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 October 2026AY 2022-237 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee claimed to have furnished documentary evidence like ITRs, account confirmations, and lenders' bank statements to the AO. The addition was based on the AO's observation that lenders did not furnish their capital accounts/balance sheets. The assessee also presented documents to show repayment of loans through banking channels, including the assessee's bank statement evidencing these repayments, which was filed for the first time before the ITAT. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the AO. The restoration is for the limited purpose of verifying the actual repayment of the impugned loans through banking channels. Upon verification, the AO is to examine the applicability of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decisions relied upon by the assessee, considering the facts and circumstances, and decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ground raised by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Prashant Ramesh Dandvate, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order confirmed an addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition pertained to unexplained unsecured loans taken by the assessee during Assessment Year 2022-23 from four parties. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's first appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee's return declared a total income of Rs. 1,78,11,630/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained unsecured loans is justified, considering the documents filed by the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders and the transactions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that all supporting documents, including ITRs, account confirmations, and bank statements of the lenders, were filed before the AO. These documents, along with the fact that loans were taken through banking channels, satisfy the three ingredients of Section 68. The AO's objection regarding the lenders not filing capital accounts/balance sheets was not tenable as the lenders were salaried/non-business individuals not required to maintain them. Furthermore, the loans have been repaid through banking channels, and the department does not dispute the repayments. The assessee relied on *CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji* and *PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd.*. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that the assessee was non-participative during the first appellate proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee was also noted to be non-participative to some extent before the AO. Given that the assessee filed additional evidence (bank statement) before the ITAT, the revenue suggested remanding the matter to the AO for fresh examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr.DR
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by the order of first appeal dated 29.08.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2022-23, the assessee has filed this appeal on following ground:

Prashant Ramesh Dandvate ITA No. 970/SRT/2025- AY 2022-23 “The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on t

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 →