BHAVYA DEVELOPERS,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 9/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 October 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 50,00,000 on account of capital contribution of partner Bhupatbhai Mathurbhai Zinwala was not justifiable. The assessee had provided details of the partner's return, which showed credibility to introduce capital. These details were available before the CIT(A) but were ignored. Therefore, Ground No. 1 was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 35,00,000 for unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the five parties were filing regular income tax returns, and their balance sheets and profit and loss accounts indicated substantial credibility. These details were also ignored by the CIT(A). Consequently, the addition in respect of unsecured loans was also not sustainable. Therefore, Ground No. 2 was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if the assessee provides sufficient evidence of the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transaction, including confirmation from the creditor/partner and proof of their creditworthiness through income tax returns and bank statements, additions under Section 68 are not justified, even if the AO or CIT(A) has overlooked such evidence. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhavya Developers, a real estate firm, filed its return for AY 2017-18 declaring Rs.93,33,510. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for scrutiny and noted capital contributions of Rs.65,00,000 from two partners and unsecured loans of Rs.35,00,000 from five parties. The assessee failed to furnish requisite details regarding the genuineness and sources of these receipts. Consequently, the AO made additions of Rs.65,00,000 for unexplained capital contribution and Rs.35,00,000 for unsecured loans, assessing total income at Rs.1,93,33,510. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 50,00,000 on account of capital contribution of partner Bhupatbhai Mathurbhai Zinwala is justified, turning on Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Assessee's contention: The assessee provided an affidavit explaining the inability to furnish details, along with the partner's confirmed ledger account, ITRs, bank statements, and personal accounts. The partner's creditworthiness was established as they filed returns for several years. Amounts were received via account payee cheques. Reliance was placed on Patel Vishnubhai Kantilal & Co. vs. ITO, Vinay Cloth Store V/s. ITO, and CIT V/s. Odedara Construction. - Revenue's contention: The assessee failed to provide independent sources of the partner's substantial income or capital, thus not establishing the partner's capacity to introduce the capital. Reliance was placed on the assessment and CIT(A) orders. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 35,00,000 on account of unexplained cash credit (unsecured loans) received during the year is justified, turning on Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Assessee's contention: The assessee provided the five parties' income tax returns, confirmed ledger accounts, and bank statements. The depositors had filed returns for several years, establishing their creditworthiness. Tax was deducted at source, and depositors showed corresponding interest income. Reliance was placed on Associated Transrail Structure Ltd. vs. ACIT and CIT vs. Ranchhodbhai Jivabhai Nakhava. - Revenue's contention: The loans advanced were disproportionate to the declared income and financial profile of the lenders, thus their creditworthiness was not established. Reliance was placed on the assessment and CIT(A) orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 23.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 50/- lacs on account of capital contribution of partner Bhupatbhai Mathurbhai Zinwala as discussed in para 5 of the CIT (A) order. BHAVYA DEVELOPERS

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 →