How many judgments cite CIT v. P. Mohanakala?

525 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. P. Mohanakala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 115BBE, Section 69C, Section 133(6).

CIT v. P. Mohanakala

291 ITR 278Supreme Court of India2007#125 most cited

What is CIT v. P. Mohanakala authority for?

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

525

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,269 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P. Mohanakala · 291 ITR 278 · Section 68 · Section 69A · Section 69C · unexplained cash credit · undisclosed income · circumstantial evidence · burden of proof · assessee rebuttal · preponderance of probability · genuineness of transaction

Also reported as

161 Taxmann 169210 CTR 20

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 115BBE Section 69C Section 133(6)Section 148 Section 69A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor source of source addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction share application money entry operator unexplained cash credit principal commissioner of income-tax income-tax officer section 131 section 69c

Judgments citing CIT v. P. Mohanakala

Pavan Kumar Bhagat, Saharsa vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Sahara

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

ITA 281/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 281/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pavan Kumar Bhagat ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AMUPB8304J Appearances: Assessee represented by : Abhi Sarkar, Adv. Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 23-July-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 02-September-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissione…

M/S Mool Raj Vijay Kumar, Kaushambi vs. Dy./ACIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 39/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…(Gujarat) (f) [2014] 221 Taxman 143 (Andhra Pradesh) (Mag.) Gayathri Associates vs. Income Tax Officer (g) Smt Puja Grover vs. ACIT (I.T.A. No.140/A/2024) order dated 20/03/2025 (h) [2015] 375 ITR 123 (Calcutta), CIT vs. Maithan International (i) — [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohankala LT.A. No.39/Alld/2023 | Assessment Year:2018-19 J (j) [2012] 204 Taxman 135 (Allahabad) Sagittraious Builders &Colonisers v. CIT (k) [2019] 102 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi) Alfa Bhoj Ltd. vs. DCIT 4. We have heard learned Department Representative and perused the materials available on record. It is found that the learned…

DCIT- Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata vs. Vikrma Impex Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 317/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…nnot be assumed in the absence of any material that there has been some illegalities in the assessee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect…

DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata vs. Vikrma Impex Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 316/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Assistant Commissioner-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kdm Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our

ITA 3040/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3040/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kdm Impex 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aadfk2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Acit-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kdm Impex

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 37Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ मुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3040/MUM/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. KDM Impex 506, 5th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 PAN : AADFK2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 2…

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1271/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 that the provisions of Sec. 68 stipulates as under and shall be applicable on fulfilling the following conditions :- (i) There has to be a credit entry in the books of accounts of the assessee; (ii) The books of account have to be of the previous year ; (iii) No explanation is submitted or explanation furnished is not found satisfactory. In the c…

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1270/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 that the provisions of Sec. 68 stipulates as under and shall be applicable on fulfilling the following conditions :- (i) (ii) (iii) There has to be a credit entry in the books of accounts of the assessee; The books of account have to be of the previous year ; No explanation is submitted or explanation furnished is not found satisfactory. In the c…

Basanth Lal Sah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 612/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us :

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.612/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Basanthi Lal Sah, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, R/o. Hyderabad. Ward –11(1), Hyderabad. PAN : BEFPS6699M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Narahari Biswal, Assessee Advocate. Represented by राजस्व का…

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…s Voucher No. 720 to 724 were found cancelled which shows tinkering in sales register. (h) The Ld. CIT(A) relied various case laws cited at page 52 to 70 of his order as under:- (i) CIT vs. RS Rathore (1995) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.) (ii) CIT vs. P.Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (iii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) (iv) CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) 11 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. (v) CIT vs. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) (vi) A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) (vii) Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) (viii)…

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Kolkata vs. Rudramukhi Vintrade Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Rs 1.48 cr is given. 4. The request for cross examination of the accommodation entry provider was not considered necessary by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the judicial pronouncements in the cases mentioned below: i) CIT v. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (SC) ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) iii) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) iv) CIT Vs Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly concluded as under: “7.4 It is therefore obligatory on the part of the assessee that it explains the nature and source of credits in its books of accou…

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

…] 241 ITR 497 (Ker.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169. A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is wellsettled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the as…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. Minto Park Estates Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned

ITAT/4/2025HC Calcutta01 Aug 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…bscriptions were collected as part of the pre-meditated plan, a “smoke screen” conceived and executed with the connivance or involvement of the assessee company has 1 [1994] 208 ITR 465 2 [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) 3 [1958] 34 ITR 807 4 [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) 5 [2012] 25 Taxmann.com 276 (Delhi) ITAT NO. 4 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 7 of 22 been satisfactorily proved. In such factual circumstances, the assessing officer came to the conclusion that the identity, creditworthiness of the subscriber companies and the genuineness of the transa…

Abdulbhai Kasambhai & Co, Sanjan vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1231/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayanand Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1231/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Abdulbhai Kasambhai & Co. Vs. Ito, Udhava Road, Sanjan, Ward – 1, Dist. Valsad – 396150, Gujarat Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahfa4245J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushbu Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

…entity is liable to explain credits, even if it claims to have been dissolved. In the instant case, assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof by furnishing satisfactory explanation for credits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. P. Mohankala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) has held that if assessee fails to provide satisfactory explanation and supporting evidence for credits, addition u/s 68 of the Act is justified. In view of the above legal and factual positions, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (SUC…

Vijay Saklecha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 228/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Vijay Saklecha, Vs. Ito, No.194 Prop : Sambhav Steels & Infra Ward – 3(2)(3), Solutions, Jagajyothi Layout, Bangalore. Nagadevanahalli, Bangalore – 560 056. Pan : Aiapv 5386L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…o show cause how the moony was deposited in bank account is not income. In this regard, the AO relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CTI Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC), CIT Vs. P. Mohankala and Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). But there was no response from the assessee’s side. Accordingly, as per the details available, the assessee had maintained bank accounts in ICICI Bank No23505500029 and HDFC Bank account No.50200002334026 and total cash deposited was Rs.1,09,97,850/-. Accordingly, the entire cash deposited during this period was considered as income under s…

Luminant Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4356/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None

Section 68

…9 ITR 112 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. ITR 112 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), most of which have been relied upon by [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), most of which have been relied upon by [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), most of which have been relied upon by the Revenue. The Revenue is under no obligation to show from what the Revenue. The Revenue is under no obligation to show from what the Revenue. The Revenue is under no obliga…

Income Tax Officer-12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

ITA 2766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITO-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1st floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1st floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. PAN NO. AAECM 6609 G Appellant Respondent : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Assessee by : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 12/06/2025 : 30/07/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the…

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1870/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

…esumptive income under section 44AD is filed. Further, there is no bank entry of expenses. Even during appellate proceeding, the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence. The ld. CIT(A) referred the decision of Apex Court in CIT vs P. Mohana Kala 291 ITR 278, wherein it was held that money came by way of cheque and paid through process of banking transaction itself is of no consequences. The assessee is not carrying out any business activity. The assessee has not fulfilled this requirement of provision of business income under presumptive basis as there is no business activity. On the basis of afore…

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1869/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1868/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

Ashish Garg, Noida vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 1726/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 68

…n of income and the assessments are completed in those cases. In such a situation the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following cases in support of the above contentions: • CIT Vs. P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278; • Smt. Shanta Devi Vs. CIT 171 ITR 532 (P&H); • DCIT Vs. M/s Jogia Properties Ltd. [2022] (10 TMI 1047 ITAT, Mumbai); • DCIT Vs. Basant R. Aggarwal [2023] (5) TMI 634-ITAT- Ahmedabad. 5. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that in assessee’s own case for the AY 2017-18 the Tribunal in ITA 1018/Del/2023 dated 31.01.2025 accepted the contention of…