BALJIT SINGH SIDHU,GURUGRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 677/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 October 2025AY 2012-132 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished sufficient explanation and documentary evidence to substantiate the cash credit. The Tribunal found that the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor were established, and the source of the funds was also explained. Therefore, the addition was deleted. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the assessee, Shri Baljit Singh Sidhu, are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana, dated 28.03.2025, for the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue is the respondent. The appeals arise from the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Ludhiana. The core of the dispute revolves around the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the assessee's income. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of this addition by the CIT(A). The specific amount in dispute is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the appeals are filed against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the Assessing Officer's addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified, considering the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- is unjustified. The assessee claims to have provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence to substantiate the cash credit. The assessee likely relies on the fact that the source of the credit was explained and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor were established to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Assessing Officer and subsequently upheld by the CIT(A), likely contended that the explanation and evidence provided by the assessee were not satisfactory. The Revenue probably argued that the cash credit remained unexplained in the eyes of the law, warranting its addition to the assessee's income under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH "A", CHANDIGARH

HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE

श्री ललित कुमार, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री कृणवन्त सहाय, लेखा सदस्य BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM

आ.पी. सं. / ITA Nos.677 to 679/Cbd/2025

आयकर अपील सं. / . / Assessment Year : 2012-13 निर्धारण वर्ष /

Shri Baljit Singh Sidhu C/o. Mrs. Karmi Singh Mann 15, Amalta's Marg, DLF Phase-1 Gurugram, Haryana-122002

बनाम The ITO Ward-1(1) Ludhiana

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →