SUNIL EKNATH LOHARKAR,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 37,19,000 as unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the alleged purchasers. However, an enhancement made by the CIT(A) to the agricultural income claim was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 37,19,000 in cash into his bank accounts, claiming it as advance against land sale. The ITAT examined the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties involved.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits constituted unexplained cash credits and if the CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to enhance the income in appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry278 citing44 ITR 891 · 1962 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co.240 citing251 ITR 864 · 2001 · HC
- CIT v. Union Tyres135 citing240 ITR 556 · 1999 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A) -1, Nashik. 4. The PCIT-1, Nashik. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, “बी” बेंच, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy //
Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
A.Y. : 2012-13 Sunil Eknath Loharkar, S.No. Details Date Initials 1 Draft dictated on 20.07.2022 2 Draft placed before author 21.09.2022 Draft proposed & placed before the Second 3 Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 7 Date of uploading of Order 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Manmohansingh S. Ranawat, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-2(5), ThaneMumbai26 Jun 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Union Tyres and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income by introducing new sources of income not examined by the AO, as this exceeded the appellate authority's jurisdiction. For other additions confirmed by the C...
- DCIT, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad vs Vinay Sharma, GhaziabadDelhi30 Jun 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Union Tyres and 2 other authorities
The tribunal held that the assessees were accommodation entry providers. While agreeing that the entire disallowance was not sustainable, it found merit in the CIT(A)'s principle of assessing a profit element. However, t...
- DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs Geeta Sharma, GhaziabadDelhi30 Jun 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Union Tyres and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that once an assessee is found to be an accommodation entry provider, only the estimated profit element should be added. The CIT(A)'s direction to assess at 2.5% was found to be in principle correct, bu...
- Sunil Eknath Loharkar, Nashik vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…Pune23 Sept 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Union Tyres and 2 other authorities
The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 37,19,000 as unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the alleged p...
- Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New DelhiDelhi10 Jan 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Union Tyres and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of alleged gifts, citing lack of corroborative evidence and following a High Court decision. Additions under Section 68 and consequent commission expenses were also deleted, f...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
