ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. SUSHIL KUMAR SURANA, GUWAHATI

ITA 198/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence including identity, capacity, and source of funds for the loans, as well as proof of repayment and deduction of tax at source on interest paid. The CIT(A) had also considered these evidences and allowed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return of income, and the case was selected for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer added ₹ 8,25,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit based on loans taken from three creditors, treating them as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee provided confirmations, details of lenders, and evidence of loan repayment.

What were the issues?

Whether the loans added by the AO as unexplained cash credit were indeed unexplained, given the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding identity, capacity, source of funds, and repayment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl, Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate
Hearing: 11/03/2026Pronounced: 13/03/2026

PER: BENCH

This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15/07/2024for the AY 2017-18. 2. The only issue raised by the revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against deletion of addition of ₹ 8,25,00,000/- by the ld. CIT(A) by admitting new evidences as made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) as unexplained cash credit.

3.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income on 29/10/2017 declaring total income of ₹ 22,11,510/-. The case of the assessee

2 ACIT Vs Sushil Kr Surana was select

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 →