SYEDALI EBRAHIM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 571/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions regarding the addition under Section 68. While some documents were submitted, they required verification by the Assessing Officer. Grounds A, B, and C were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which dismissed the appeal against the assessment order, was heard. The assessment order had added Rs. 97,27,301/- under Section 68 as unexplained credit and disallowed Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss from self-occupied property.

What were the issues?

Whether the credit of Rs. 97,27,301/- to the capital account in FY 2015-16 was unexplained, and if Section 68 was applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, COCHIN

[ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 19/06/2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. Assessee has also SA

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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →