NARAYANLAL BHANAJI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 588/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 March 2026AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence, including the assessee's admissions and seized material, which established involvement in bogus billing and commission income.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared brokerage and commission income. During a search, incriminating material related to bogus invoices and accommodation entries was found. The assessee admitted involvement in facilitating these entries for commission.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of commission income earned from bogus billing accommodation entries is justified and whether it should be treated as substantive.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153C,Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 131(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Pallavi, CIT-DR & Shri Rameshwar P
Hearing: 10.03.2026

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed for A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to make the addition of Rs. 2,89,278/- on account of commission earned from providing bogus bill accommodation entry in the hands of the Appellant substanti

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 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →