DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHAH ASIT SURENDRABHAI HUF, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1091/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 October 2026AY 2018-198 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained unsecured loans through banking channels, disclosed them in its audited accounts, and repaid them through banking channels. It relied on the judicial recognition that repayment of a loan is a good indicator of its genuineness, citing CIT vs Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji. The Tribunal also found that the suspicion arising from the search in Shri Rajesh G. Mehta's case was not founded on facts that created a valid doubt on the genuineness of the loan transactions with Aneri Fincap Ltd. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted all relevant details at the assessment stage, and no additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A) was under no obligation to seek a remand report. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision deleting the additions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, concerning additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a HUF engaged in finance, had received unsecured loans of Rs. 11,05,06,713/- and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. The Assessing Officer treated these loans as unexplained cash credits based on information regarding search operations on the 'One World Group' and alleged that Aneri Fincap Ltd. was a paper company providing accommodation entries. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, holding that the transactions were genuine loans received and repaid through banking channels, and that the assessee had discharged its onus. The Revenue's appeals are against these deletions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,05,06,713/- (for AY 2018-19) and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (for AY 2019-20) made under Section 68 of the Act, by not appreciating that the assessee availed accommodation entries from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., identified as a paper company providing bogus entries. - Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implied by the CIT(A)'s findings that the transactions were genuine loans through banking channels, recorded in audited accounts, and fully repaid. - Revenue's Contention: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions, failing to appreciate that the assessee availed accommodation entries from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., which is a paper company controlled by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta and engaged in providing bogus entries. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions based on documents submitted during appellate proceedings without calling for a remand report from the AO to verify them, and allowing the appeal merely because transactions were through banking channels without cogent supporting documents. - Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded. - Revenue's Contention: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions based on documents submitted during appeal without obtaining a remand report from the AO for verification, and allowing the appeal solely on the basis of banking transactions without sufficient supporting documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha & Shri Tapas Ram Misra

For Appellant: Shri Dipak R. Thakkar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, CIT-DR &, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R, Shri Dipak R. Thakkar, A.R

PER TAPAS RAM MISRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The captioned appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the separate orders dated 30-01-2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relate to Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2018-19 & 2019-20. Since the facts, issues and submissions are identic

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →