RAJESHKUMAR KANTILAL PUJARA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1957/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the disputed amount pertained to a property purchase, where the source of payment from both the assessee and his wife was explained. The confusion arose from incorrect reflection in the balance sheet, not from unexplained credit. Therefore, no addition was warranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income tax return was selected for scrutiny, and an addition of Rs. 56,86,455/- was made under Section 68 on account of sundry creditors. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, while deleting another addition related to unexplained expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 on account of sundry creditors for a property purchase is justified when the source of funds is explained, albeit with misrepresentation in the balance sheet.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Hearing: 25.03.2026Pronounced: 26.03.2026

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

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 19.08.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“(1) That the learned NFAC has grievously erred in law, and on facts, in confirming the addition of Rs.56,86,455/- made u/s 68 of the Act. (2) That on facts, in law, and on evidence o

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 →