ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. PONKUMARI WIND FARM, KANYAKUMARI

ITA 2566/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 January 2026AY 2005-06Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the protective additions could not be sustained as the substantive assessment for a later year had reached finality, and the assessee had also offered the credits to tax under Section 41(1) in a subsequent year. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of protective additions made for alleged bogus credits in the assessee's books. The AO had made these additions due to discrepancies with a supplier's records, but the CIT(A) found the purchases genuine, supported by bills and audited statements.

What were the issues?

Whether protective additions for bogus credits are sustainable when the substantive assessment has reached finality and the credit has been offered to tax in a subsequent year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153C,Section 41(1),Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 14.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

PER BENCH: These appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai – 18 both dated 16.07.2025, passed under section 250 of the ITA Nos.2566 & 2567/CHNY/2025 & CO Nos.87 & 88/CHNY/2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘

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 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →