GHANSHYAMBHAI DEVRAJBHAI DOBARIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 865/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 January 2026AY 2012-13Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that although the details were on record, they were not properly examined by the Assessing Officer. Upon verification of the materials, the Tribunal was satisfied that the source of capital introduction was duly explained, thus no addition under section 68 was warranted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 26,23,459/- under section 68 treating the capital introduced by the assessee as unexplained income. The assessee contended that the capital was duly disclosed and its sources were properly explained, providing various supporting documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under section 68 for unexplained capital introduction was justified, given the evidence provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri PM Jagasheth, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 23.01.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“the CIT(A) in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

In the present case, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.26,23,459/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the capital introduced by the assessee as unexplained income. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said amount had been duly disclosed and offered to tax and that the sources of capital introduction were properly explained. In support, the assessee furnished the following details:

Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– Sr.No. Particulars 1 Certificate of Import Export Certificate. 2. Bank Statement of The Varachha Co-op Bank of Ghanshyambhai Devarajbhai Dobariya from the period of 01 April 2011 to 31 March 2012

3. Bank Statement of Axis Bank of Ghanshyambhai Devarajbhai Dobariya from the period of 01 April 2011 to 31 March 2012

4. Account Copy of Bank Book of Ghanshyambhai Devarajbhai Dobariya from the period of 01 April 2011 to 31 March 2012

5.

Account Copy of Cash Book of Ghanshyambhai Devarajbhai Dobariya from the period of 01 April 2011 to 31 March 2012

6.

Acknowledgment ROI and Computation of income for A.Y. 2008-09 To 2012-13 and relevant page

7.

7x12 of Agriculture Land

3.

On perusal of the above documents reflecting the amounts introduced into the capital account, we find that although these details were available on record, the same were not properly examined by the Assessing Officer. Upon verification of the material placed before us, we are satisfied that the source of capital introduction stands duly explained. Accordingly, no addition under section 68 of the Act is called for.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →