ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1252/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 January 2026AY 2015-16Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)74 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to discharge the shifted burden of proving the contrary.

What were the facts?

The assessee received advances from M/s. Frontier Mercantile Private Limited (FMPL) for property sale, which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The AO's doubt stemmed from FMPL's creditworthiness and its prior classification as an 'entry provider' in another case.

What were the issues?

Whether advances received for property sale can be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 when the assessee has provided sufficient evidence of the transaction's genuineness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Hearing: 17.12.2025Pronounced: 28.01.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are directed against the separate orders dated 25.04.2024 and 26.04.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of respective assessment orders/penalty orders passed u/s.143(3)/271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Identical grounds have been taken by the assessee in most of these appeals, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

3.

Firstly we will tak

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 →