CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

141 ITR 67High Court1983#370 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi authority for?

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for additions of cash credits found solely in a bank passbook, as a passbook maintained by the bank is not considered a 'book of the assessee' for the purpose of this section, especially when the assessee does not maintain their own books of account.

237

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi · 141 ITR 67 · section 68 · unexplained cash credit · bank passbook · books of account · assessee's books · applicability of Section 68 · no books of account · cash credit in bank account

Also reported as

11 Taxmann 5919 SOT 460

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 115BBESection 131

Issues it is cited on

section 2(12a)addition under section 68addition u/s 68unexplained cash creditsection 68change of opinionsection 131genuineness of the transactionsection 145limited scrutinyagricultural incomesection 115bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Mohd Rizwan, Delhi

ITA 3535/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Delhi. (Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 80C

…ted. 4. Learned counsel, appearing for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Baladin Ram v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 and the decisions of the Mumbai and Allahabad High Courts reported in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 and SundarLal Jain v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 316, respectively, contended, that Section 68 of the Act can be invoked only, when, the books of account of the assessee show the cash entry and not otherwise. 5. We are afraid, such a narrow and restricted interpretation of the provisions, contained in Section 68 was advanced by learned counsel for the app…

Bansi Lal Kumhar, Udaipur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…he claim of the assessee by bringing on records any documentary evidence. He placed Reliance is placed on the following judgment: - 1. Anand Ram Raitani V CIT (1997) 223 ITR 544 (Gau). - 2. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [141 ITR 67 (Born.) - 3. Smt Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 1 (2), Thane (2016) - 4. ACIT V Hirapanna Jewellers (2021)128 taxman 291 (Visakhapatnam Trib) - 5. Vishan Swaroop Gupta [TS-109-ITAT-2021(JPR)] Jaipur ITAT Dinesh kumar Verma ITAT - 6. Shree Sanand Textiles Industries Ltd. V. DCIT vide ITA No. 1166/AHD/2014. - 7. The LD. AR also submitted that the as…

ACIT, Ncc-2, Madurai vs. Ganesan Anbuselvam, Thiruthangal

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3181/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3181/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…were utilized towards the purchase only. Thus, it was stated that these transactions represented business transactions which could not have been treated as unexplained credits. The appellant also relied upon decisions in cases of Poona v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.), Mehul V.Vyas [2017] 80 taxmann. Com 311 (Mumbai-Trib.), Smt. Manasi Mahendra Oitkar [2016] 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.), Smt.Madhu Raitani [2011] 10 taxmann.com 206 (Gau.), Kamal Kumar Mishra [2013] 33 taxmann.com 610, Smt.Ramilaben B. Patel [2018] 100 taxmann.com 325 (Ahmedabad Trib.), Amitabh Bansal [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi…

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1596/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Deputy Commissioner of v/s. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AALPP1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/MUM/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 1595/MUM/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, v…

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1595/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Deputy Commissioner of v/s. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AALPP1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/MUM/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 1595/MUM/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, v…

Mr. Tejsingh Dhansingh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2751/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, ()

Section 44ASection 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 2751/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tejsingh Dhansingh Vs Income Tax Officer Rajpurohit Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai Piperwala Building, Room Kautilya Bhavan, No.36, 3rd Floor, 112 Vir Bandra East, Mumbai Vithaldas Chandan 400051 Street, Vadgadi, Mumbai 400003 PAN: ABEPS0232K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri. Pankaj Jain Respondent by Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR-DR) Date of Hearing 17.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal filed by th…

Indira Vashdev Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3417/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3417/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2012-13) Indira Vashdev Gandhi V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward 634, Raj Legacy, 2 Building बिधम 29(1)(5), Mumbai 1 Wing, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli Kautilya Bkc Bandra, West, Mumbai 400083 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajzpg7601H Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 14.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR
Section 148Section 250Section 68

…aring in the bank statement in the absence of books of accounts maintained by the Assessee. Thus, the said addition of Rs. 1,11,15,000/- being contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.)" may be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted. 5. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 51,15,000/- being unsustainable in law may be dele…

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…account directly and hence, the question of invoking the provisions of section 68 of the act does not arise at all. In this connection, the Hon'ble Tribunal's attention is invited to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) wherein it has been held that pass book supplied by the bank could not be regarded as book of the assessee. A copy of the decision is available at page no. 1 to 4 of the case law paper book. This decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Smt.Babbal Bhatia V. ITO, ITA Nos.5430 & 5432/Del/2011. А сорy of the decision is…

Bimal Kumar Drolia, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 347/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147(6)Section 148Section 250Section 34

…been assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries for assessment year 2009-10. [Para 28] ■ The respondent-assessee, thereafter relied upon the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) in support of his submission that bank statement would not constitute 'books of an assessee' and therefore, the provisions of section 68 which requires the credits in the books of an assessee are not attracted in the present case and therefore, no addition is required to be made based on credits appearing in the bank statements. He submit…

Dharmanandan Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 96/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…which means for the previous year 2008-09, in terms of the definition under section 3 of the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the exp…

Rachna Goyal, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…ar, if the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory. The assessee does not maintain any books of accounts. The Bank account or bank passbook is not considered books of accounts. In CIT, Poona v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi, 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) it was held that the pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee cannot be regarded as the book of the assessee, that is, a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. Therefore, a a cash credit for the previous year shown in the assessee's bank pass book does not fall within the ambit of Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961…

Shri Prabhudayal Beriwal, Jyotinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dibrugarh

ITA 93/GTY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69A

…form or in digital form or as print-outs of data stored in such electronic form or in digital form or in] a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data storage device;” While through the case of CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi reported in [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay), it is understood that a bank pass book would not pass muster as "books of account" but it is felt that this case pre-dates the insertion of definition of books as per Section 2(12A) of the Act and hence, it needs to be clearly pin-pointed whether at all the preliminary requirement u/s 68 of the Act regarding the presence of books is fulf…

Leela Dutt Sharma, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 144Section 69A

…P&L A/c and that cash is deposited in the bank account, also when books are not rejected. For the said proposition, the AR relied on the ratio of following decisions : A. Mehta Parikh and Company vs. CIT (30 ITR 181) (SC) (1956) b. CIT v Bhaichand H. Gandhi (141 ITR 67) (Bom. HC) (1983) c. Shri Harish Sharma vs ITO (ITA No. 327/Chd/2020) dtd. 11.05.2021 d. Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (55 CCH 0544) (Del. ITAT) dtd. 12.04.2019 6.11 It was submitted that the cash deposit in bank in question is sourced from sale proceeds of business and collection from debtors. The cash deposit in bank is evident to have subseque…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1465/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा0 एस. सीथललक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड कमलेश जयंतभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1463 to 1465/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Kailash Chand Maheshwari 223 Kirti Nagar, Near Kamal and Company Tonk Road, Jaipur बनाम Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-02, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर.सं./PAN/GIR No.: AKQPM5593A अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रतियोधी/Respondent निर्णयार्थी की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri S. L.…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डॉ. एस. सीतलक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1463 to 1465/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Kailash Chand Maheshwari 223 Kirti Nagar, Near Kamal and Company Tonk Road, Jaipur बनाम Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-02, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AKQPM5593A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रEstosi / Respondent निर्णयार्थी की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1463 to 1465/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 cuke Kailash Chand Maheshwari DCIT, Vs. 223 Kirti Nagar, Near Kamal and Central Circle-02, Company Tonk Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKQPM5593A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S. L.…

Kusum Yadav, Indore vs. ITO 1(2), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 518/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 263Section 54BSection 68

…ny cash credit in books of accounts, the provisions of section 68 of the Act, does not arise. In support of his contention he relied on the following decisions: (i) Smt. Babbal Bhatia vs. ITO, ITA No.5430 & 5432 (ITAT, Delhi). (ii) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom). (iii) Sampat Automobile vs. ITO 96 TTJ 368 12.2 He rests his arguments praying for deletion of the addition of Rs.20 lakhs, made u/s 68 of the Act 61. 13. The Ld. DR, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and also on the findings of AO and submitted that there is a clear finding in the assessment order that wef 1st April, 2013, the village…

Nitesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1

ITA 1132/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…n making addition, the whole credit of bank account. Only profit and commission income can be estimated. The following case laws are quoted in support of contention of the assessee – Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay), a bank pass book or bank statement cannot be considered to be a 'book' maintained by the assessee for any previous year for the purpose of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition made and sustained deserves to be deleted and we direct to delete the same Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, ITA No. 13/JP/2020 Da…

Shri Sandeep S Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4801/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/w Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 68

…which he gets immunity from maintaining books of accounts. Addition u/s 68 of the Act has been made on the basis of the entries found in the passbook of the assessee. 6.1. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bom.), has held as under:- “When moneys are deposited in a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the hanker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor and not a trustee and beneficiary. Applying this principle, the pass book supplied by the bank to its constituent is only a copy of the constituent's account in the books maintaine…

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.411/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–2(1), Nagpur v/s Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ……………. Respondent 469, Poonam Villa, New Colony Nagpur 440 013 PAN – AATPH2594R Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 21/01/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order date…