DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEBABAD vs. TECHNO INDUSTRIES, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 659/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 September 2025AY 2014-15Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence (ledger accounts, bank statements, TDS certificates). The Tribunal upheld this, stating the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the onus to prove the transaction bogus, relying on generalized third-party statements without providing specific evidence or allowing cross-examination, which violated natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, was assessed for AY 2014-15. Based on Investigation Wing information, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.51,12,192/- under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE, treating the repayment of a loan (originally taken in FY 2011-12) as unexplained money, alleging it was a bogus accommodation entry.

What were the issues?

Whether the repayment of an alleged bogus loan can be added as unexplained money under Section 69A when the assessee provides documentary evidence, and the Assessing Officer relies on generalized third-party statements without specific evidence or cross-examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR
Hearing: 14.08.2025Pronounced: 25.09.2025

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →