SHAURYA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENT CIR 2(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1934/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: the filing of the return of income as well as before the completion of the assessment proceedings. In view of these facts and circumstances, we hold that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act is not sustainable.2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both amounts were repaid by the assessee before the filing of the return of income and prior to the completion of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition made under Section 68 of the Act was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 11,00,000/-, comprising Rs. 10,00,000/- from M/s. Olympic Corporation and Rs. 1,00,000/- from M/s. Ritesh Patel & Sons, treating them as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. These loans were received by the assessee in 2016.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable when the amounts were repaid by the assessee before filing the return of income and completion of assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr DR
Hearing: 13.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

(Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

Delay Condoned.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-12 (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The sole grievance raised by the assessee in its appeal reads as under:- “The Ld. CIT(A) as erred in law as well as on fact in upholding an addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of loan received from M/s. Olympic Corporation and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of amount received from M/s. Ritesh Patel & Sons, treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 10.08.2018. The assessee had filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 35,95,670/-.

4.

We have carefully considered the submissions and examined the material placed on record. We find that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was received from M/s.

Shaurya Developers Vs. DCIT Asst.Year :2017-18 - 2– Olympic Corporation on 13.07.2016 and was repaid on 24.05.2017. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- received from M/s. Ritesh Patel & Sons on 28.07.2016 was repaid on 25.04.2017. It is an undisputed fact that both the amounts were repaid by the assessee before the filing of the return of income as well as before the completion of the assessment proceedings. In view of these facts and circumstances, we hold that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act is not sustainable.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Heard, dictated and pronounced in open court on 13.01.2026

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →