PRATIKKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR,TARSADI - KOSAMBA vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1022/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 April 2026AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the opening cash on hand was sufficiently explained by the assessee by referring to the previous year's return. The gifts were considered genuine as details of the donor, who was the assessee's father, were provided, including bank statements and cash withdrawals. The addition for unexplained expenditure was a corollary to the cash on hand issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertained to the assessment year 2017-18. The additions were made on grounds of opening cash on hand, unexplained gifts, and unexplained expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether the opening cash on hand, gifts received, and expenditures were sufficiently explained and not taxable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 06.04.2026

O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 17-11-2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The addition was made on the ground of opening cash on hand and treated the same as unexplained u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee submitted that the assessee has given details of cash balance as on 31-03-2016 and the same was reported in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. From the perusal of records, it appears in the details. Thus, the addition u/s. 68 is thoroughly explained by the assessee. Thus ground no. 1 is allowed.

3.

As regards ground no. 2, the gift deed and gift received from the donors, the assessee has shown the credibility of Rameshbhai Patel as the said Rameshbhai Patel was father of the assessee and the relevant details were given such as bank statements and cash withdrawals of the father. Thus, the gift was genuine. Hence, ground no. 2 is allowed.

4.

As regards ground no. 3 relating to addition on account unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C, the same is corollary to ground no. 1 and hence allowed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 06.04.2026

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →