ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, VADODARA vs. MAGARAM KUMBHARAM JAT, VADODARA

ITA 2509/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that it was not disputed by the AO that the assets were purchased in FY 2015-16 and not in the year under consideration. The assessee had adequately explained the source of funds as business receipts and realization from debtors, with all payments made through banking channels. The documentary evidence, including bank entries, purchase bills, and sale deeds, were furnished and not disputed by the AO. The AO's only objection was based on certain discrepancies in account maintenance. Furthermore, the assessee had explained the revaluation of assets from Rs. 1,32,09,123/- to Rs. 1,80,05,137/-. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that it was not a case of introduction of capital from unexplained sources. Therefore, no infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 1,80,05,137/- on account of unexplained increase in capital. The assessee, a proprietor of M/s. M K Enterprise, explained that the increase in capital was due to the introduction of fixed assets (land, building, machinery) acquired in FY 2015-16 (AY 2016-17) through business receipts and realization from debtors. The AO noted discrepancies in accounts but did not dispute the source of investment. The AO treated the increase as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that no unexplained capital was introduced in the current year and that revaluation of assets at market value was notional.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,80,05,137/- on account of unexplained increase in capital is justified, turning on the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - No capital was introduced in the year under consideration (AY 2017-18). - The fixed assets were acquired in the previous financial year (FY 2015-16, AY 2016-17). - The source of investment was business receipts and realization from debtors, with all payments made through banking channels. - The increase in asset value from Rs. 1,32,09,123/- to Rs. 1,80,05,137/- was a revaluation at market rate as per accounting principles, not an introduction of fresh capital. - Even if any investment was unexplained in an earlier year, it cannot be taxed in the current year. Revenue's Contentions: - The AO found discrepancies in the accounts of the proprietary concern and the individual balance sheet of the assessee. - The AO held that the increase in the asset side of the balance sheet was not justified and the assessee had not explained the source of investment, treating it as unexplained cash credits under Section 68.

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, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI R. GOVINDARAJAN

For Appellant: Shri Babasaheb Punappa Bhosale, DR यथ क ओर से/, Shri Rushin Patel, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rushin Patel, AR
Hearing: 04/08/2026Pronounced: 16/10/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 14.10.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. ITA No.2509/Ahd/2025 [ACIT vs. Magaram Kumbharam Jat] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 –

2.

Th

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 →