UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION,MADURAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1,, MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3283/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 February 2026AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made an addition on account of unexplained cash credit. The assessee had submitted that the cash credit represented genuine transactions and had furnished supporting documents. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer's order was based on a perfunctory examination of the facts and evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider all the evidence submitted by the assessee and pass a speaking order. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the cash credit itself, leaving it for the Assessing Officer to determine.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Universal Construction, filed an appeal against the order of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-1, Madurai. The assessment year in question is 2013-14. The appeal is before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. The specific details of the order under challenge and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt. The procedural history leading to this appeal is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash credit is justified? The assessee contends that the cash credit represents genuine transactions and has provided supporting evidence. The revenue argues that the assessee has failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash credit, thus warranting the addition. The revenue relies on the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's arguments are not explicitly detailed beyond stating that evidence was provided. The revenue's arguments are based on the failure of the assessee to discharge its onus under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 01.05.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

2.

The Ld. AR vide letter dated 08.01.2026 submitted that two appeal numbers have been allotted against the appeal filed by the assessee on 10.11.2025. i.e.

1.

3360/Chny/2025. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that the present appeal may be treated as withdrawn by the assessee. After perusing the submissions and the material on record we find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR and therefore dismiss the present appeal as withdrawn.

3.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th day of February, 2026 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →