INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. UZMA JUNED GENERAL, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 688/SRT/2025Status: PendingITAT Surat30 October 2026AY 2022-234 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had taken into account the details furnished by the assessee, which were also available to the AO. The CIT(A) had made a categorical finding that the assessee had furnished confirmations and bank books of the relevant parties, establishing the identity of depositors and the genuineness of transactions by explaining their business purpose. The CIT(A) also considered the creditworthiness of the parties for whom such details were established. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) and held that the deletion of the additions by the CIT(A) was justified. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee, Uzma Juned General, engaged in jobwork for cloth weaving, filed a return declaring Rs. 23,42,020/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for scrutiny due to large increase in unsecured loans and high liabilities compared to low income. The AO noted that out of total outstanding loans of Rs. 16,00,08,989/-, Rs. 10,21,64,749/- were received during the year. The AO treated Rs. 9,86,64,749/- as unexplained income under Section 69A, alleging lack of creditworthiness of loan creditors, except for M/s General Polytex. Additionally, the AO added Rs. 7,19,225/- from bank credits not declared in the ITR or during assessment, also under Section 69A. The total addition was Rs. 9,93,83,974/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,86,64,749/- made on account of unexplained money under Section 69A, when the assessee allegedly failed to prove the nature, source, and creditworthiness of the same. The Revenue argued that the onus to explain the nature and sources of unsecured loans lies with the assessee. 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,19,225/- made on account of unexplained money under Section 69A, as the assessee failed to disclose the bank account in her ITR. Assessee's Contention: The assessee relied on the CIT(A)'s order, submitting that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions were established. The assessee furnished confirmations and bank books of relevant parties, explaining the business purpose of these transactions. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions as the assessee failed to prove the nature, source, and creditworthiness of the amounts and did not disclose the bank account in her ITR.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 133(6),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

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

Pronounced: 30.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.688/SRT/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) INCOME TAX OFFICER, UZMA JUNED GENERAL WARD-2(2)(1), SURAT PLOT NO.76, NAIMAT BUNGLOW, GORAT ROAD, ROOM NO. 626, RANDER, Vs. AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SURAT-395005, GUJARAT MAJURA GATE, SURAT-395001, GUJARAT अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAFPF9079B

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Pushpendra Chaudhary, CIT DR प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Mehul Shah, CA सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 24.08.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 30.10.2026

O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 16.04.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2022-23. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,86,64,749/- made on account of unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act as the assessee has failed to prove the nature, source & creditworthiness of the same.

ITA No.688/SRT/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) UZMA JUNED GENERAL (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of the unexplained money made by the Assessing officer u/s. 69A of the Act even though as per the provisions of the said section onus to explain the nature & sources of the such money in the form of unsecured loans are on the assessee.

(iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,19,225/- made on account of unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act as the assessee has failed to disclose the bank account in her ITR.

(iv) On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have uphold the order of the Assessing Officer.

(v) It is therefore prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

(vi) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee is an individual and was engaged in the business of weaving of cloth on jobwork basis as a proprietorship concern under the banner of M/s Rivera Fab. Return of income for AY 2022-23 was filed in ITR-3 on 28/10/2022 declaring taxable income of Rs.23,42,020/-. Upon selection of the case for scrutiny under CASS to verify "(i) Large increase in unsecured loans, (ii) High liabilities as compared to low income/receipts", notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) were issued by the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) from time to time calling for various explanations/information with supporting evidences. Also, the scheduled VC was attended by the assessee and responses were filed online. The explanations and the evidences such as capital account, details of secured & unsecured loans availed, advances, inventories, details of job work, GST returns etc. filed during the course of the assessment proceedings were considered by the AO and it was contended that the assessee had executed job work for which he had received a sum of Rs. 65,09,719/- and had declared presumptive income of Rs.24,20,782/- and the assessee had purchased yarn for Rs.1,77,12,748/- which was not consumed during the year and the same was shown as closing stock in the books of account. It is further contended by the AO that the assessee had declared total outstanding loans of Rs.16,00,08,989/- out of which Rs.10,21,64,749/- were received during the year and the assessee could not submit any reason or purpose of availing such huge loans as the business of the assessee did not require the same. The AO further alleged that other than M/s General

ITA No.688/SRT/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) UZMA JUNED GENERAL Polytex, all other loan creditors aggregating of Rs. 9,86,64,749/- had no credit worthiness to lend such amount of loans, hence the same was treated as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. On further perusal of the bank statements of the assessee (ICICI Bank A/c No. 624601070990) received from Bank authorities u/s 133(6) of the Act, it was revealed that there was credit of Rs. 7,19,225/-during the year under consideration and the same was neither declared in the return of income nor was disclosed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. As the assessee failed to prove the source and nature of the said credits, the same was also treated as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. Thus, the total unexplained income of Rs. 9,93,83,974/- (Rs. 9,86,64,749/- + Rs. 7,19,225/-) was added to the returned income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and the income determined u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act was at Rs. 10,17,25,994/- instead of Rs. 23,42,020/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,86,64,749/- made on account of unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act as the assessee has failed to prove the nature, source & creditworthiness of the same. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of the unexplained money made by the Assessing officer u/s. 69A of the Act even though as per the provisions of the said section onus to explain the nature & sources of the such money in the form of unsecured loans are on the assessee. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,19,225/- made on account of unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act as the assessee has failed to disclose the bank account in her ITR.

6.

The Ld. Authoritised Representative (in short “the Ld. AR”) relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has established identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has taken the details furnished by the assessee on record, which were very much before

ITA No.688/SRT/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) UZMA JUNED GENERAL the AO. There is a categorical finding by the CIT(A) that the assessee has furnished confirmations as well as bank books of the relevant parties. The assessee has furnished the identity of the depositors as well as categorically established genuineness of the transactions by duly explaining that these transactions were for the business purposes. For the parties to whom the assessee could establish the creditworthiness, the CIT(A) has also taken into account the details. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).

8.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated: 30.10.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard File By order, HEMA KISHORE Digitally signed by HEMA KISHORE JAKKA JAKKA Date: 2026.11.02 15:34:22 +05'30' Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Surat Bench

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →