PUSHKAR NAGDA,KANAKHEDA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, UDAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition on a protective basis, and the CIT(A)'s decision was subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Settlement Commission. Considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the appellant one more opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 6,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO alleged that the money was channeled through a proprietary concern by obtaining bogus accommodation entries/unsecured loans, which were then advanced to the Chetak Group. The assessee claimed the amount was received by A/c payee cheque from a creditor and advanced to Shri Vikram Anjana's concern.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 6,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds and the potential violation of natural justice principles.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (6 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 338/Jodh/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13)
Gayatri Sharma, Village & Post Kelukheda, Tehsil Choti Sadri, Madhya Pradesh - 458441.
Village & Post Kelukheda, Tehsil Choti Sadri, Madhya Pradesh - 458441.
Village & Post Kelukheda, Tehsil Choti Sadri, Madhya Pradesh - 458441. PAN No. AERPN4215M (Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2010-11)
Central Circle-1 Neemuch - 458441.
Udaipur. PAN No. AAAHR9223G Baby Kunwar Jhala, 318, Scheme No. 36, Neemuch 458441. PAN No. AGSPJ7319M Vs. Dy.
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.
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
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
