QMIN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the addition was made primarily due to a lack of documentary evidence concerning the transaction with M/s Brand Cluster LLP. The Tribunal found that further verification was required and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct independent inquiries, including issuing summons, to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions and the trade liability before adjudicating the issue afresh.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, Qmin Industries Limited, filed its return for AY 2022-23. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings. During the assessment, the AO sought details of sundry creditors and trade payables. The assessee provided details for most, but the AO found the transaction with M/s Brand Cluster LLP for ₹1,57,46,408/- to be unsubstantiated.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of an unsubstantiated trade payable to M/s Brand Cluster LLP, treated as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, is justified without further independent inquiry.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
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), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 28.08.2025 passed for A.Y. 2022-23. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice.
Assessment order assessed by the ld. A.O. is void, illegal and without juri iction as addition made is other than issue of CASS.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld.
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.
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
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
