preponderance of probability — 547 judgments | BharatTax

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN vs. KRSKA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4666/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

exchange for cheques. These are professionally masked transactions and the cask trail is deliberately hidden. The AO’s conclusion was based on preponderance of probability a valid legal standard under tax jurisprudence and supported by third –party statements and seized documents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1), MOHALI vs. SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KHRAR PUNJAB

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

apply only from AY 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years. The bench further held that addition u/s 68 could not be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence and substance in the contention put forward by Ld. AO. It is settled position of law that ... case of CIT Vs Karaj Singh (15 Taxmann.com 70). The Agra Tribunal held that addition u/s 68 could not be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence to establish the fact of unexplained cash credit. No addition could be made merely on the basis

SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,KHARAR, RUPNAGAR vs. DCIT WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH JAO ITO 6(1) MOHALI, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1066/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

apply only from AY 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years. The bench further held that addition u/s 68 could not be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence and substance in the contention put forward by Ld. AO. It is settled position of law that ... case of CIT Vs Karaj Singh (15 Taxmann.com 70). The Agra Tribunal held that addition u/s 68 could not be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence to establish the fact of unexplained cash credit. No addition could be made merely on the basis

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1592/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –

Section 115BSection 132Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68

dated 24-06-2025) has been rendered on identical facts. The Agra Tribunal held that addition u/s 68 could not be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence to establish the fact of unexplained cash credit. No addition could be made merely on the basis

SARAF THE JEWELLERS, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CEN-2 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1230/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –

Section 115BSection 132Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68

dated 24-06-2025) has been rendered on identical facts. The Agra Tribunal held that addition u/s 68 could not be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence to establish the fact of unexplained cash credit. No addition could be made merely on the basis

TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3135/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

handicapped by the fact that proof in respect of the same could not be produced by the assessee. He cited the principle of preponderance of probability to urge that it was not possible to infer that the assessee would not have objected to the valuation of property sold during

JAYAKUMAR THOMAS JAYARAJ,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUNELVELI

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

ITA 2885/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 131Section 68

Evidence can be oral and cannot be\ndiscarded on this ground. Assessment order and the appellate orders\nfall foul and have disregarded the preponderance of probability test.\"\n28. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio\ndecidendi laid down in the aforementioned judgments is directly

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE MITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAXATION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

that income tax proceedings are not ruled by the rule of evidence but what is applicable to these proceedings is the test of preponderance of probability and therefore, it cannot be said any material which the Department relies upon should be subjected to cross examination. The only this is required

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE,THANE vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

that income tax proceedings are not ruled by the rule of evidence but what is applicable to these proceedings is the test of preponderance of probability and therefore, it cannot be said any material which the Department relies upon should be subjected to cross examination. The only this is required

UMESH PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 482/PAT/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

ntaxation. It cannot be said that the admission of additional income was made without\nany credible evidence. The standard of prove is "preponderance of probability" or\n\"human probability in a civil proceeding. In this case, the appellant was the only\nperson who had the burden to disclose the source

AMIT GOYAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1159/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Amit Goyal Huf, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M-59, Greater Kailash-Ii, Ward 30(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi (Pan: Aalha3711R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

LTCG earned by the assessee is not genuine and when these are viewed cumulatively alongwith statements of entry operators there is very high preponderance of probability of the LTCG of the assessee to be non-genuine. Hence, the 4 | P a g e addition made by the AO was rightly ... assessee being general in nature. However, the findings and reasoning of the AO are patently very general. No doubt, the test of preponderance of probability would be applicable, but, that would be on the basis of some evidence indicating that some colorable device was used for introduction of unaccounted money

NARMALA PENNECHAND SARDA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 42(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the addition made by

ITA 7291/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69

have evidentiary value if corroborated and properly recorded statement shows that unexplained investment established on ITA 7291/Mum/2025 (AY 2023-24) Nirmala Pennechand Sarda preponderance of probability under section 69 and upheld the addition. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submission

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1(1), RAIPUR vs. BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as above

ITA 511/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jalaj Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 40A(3)

filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed the appeal not only based on evidences produced before him but also on the preponderance of probability of enquiries outcome resulting 92% purchases genuine. The relevant part of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order reads as under: “4.1 With regard ... Further, she also put emphasis on the fact that the purchases could not be accepted on the principle of preponderance of probability of enquiries outcome. It was categorically submitted that the assessee was duty bound to explain the genuineness of each purchase if asked to do so. The claim that

DCIT - 19(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUGH vs. BHARAT RAMJI BHAI MANEK, GRANT ROAD MUMBAI

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

ITA 4339/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250

sustained. The CIT(A) erred in treating the lack of cross-examination as a fatal flaw, ignoring the circumstantial evidence and preponderance of probability. Judicial Precedents: Kailash Chandra Gupta HUF v/s ITO (L.T.A. No. 4013/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ. 2012-13): "Thus, not giving cross-examination opportunity did not and would ... assessee's income underSection 68. The findings of the AO were based on a preponderance of probability, surrounding circumstances, and direct evidence of a larger conspiracy, which the assessee failed to rebut with anything beyond self-serving documentation. It is humbly urged to allow the Revenue's appeal and mandate

MUKESH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.631/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mukesh Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Adipa 0575 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)

justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human conduct, and preponderance of probability without bringing on record any legal evidence against the assessee. We rely on the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries

PUJA AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.628/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Puja Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Agwpa 5744 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)

justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human conduct, and preponderance of probability without bringing on record any legal evidence against the assessee. We rely on the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries

V GAYATHRI,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KRISHNAGIRI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1871/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Jecintha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

able to deposit SBN of Rs.16,09,500/-. The ld.CIT(A), vide order dated 24.11.2025, while dismissing the appeal stated that the preponderance of probability was against the assessee. He further stated that the assessee failed to substantiate the source with relevant documents and that the case law relied

MYSTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 5222/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)Section 274

nquite trite suspicion howsoever strongmay be but cannot be the\nbasis of addition except for some material evidence on record. The\ntheory of preponderance of probability is applied to weigh the\nevidence of either side and draw a conclusion in favour of party\nwhich has more favorable factors

ALKA ASHOK JAGTAP,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN

ITA 7524/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. PONKUMARI WIND FARM, KANYAKUMARI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2567/CHNY/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2566 & 2567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2005-06 & 2006-07 & C.O. No.87 & 88/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A.Nos.2566 & 2567/Chny/2025] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Ponkumari Wind Farm, Income Tax, Vs. No.17/41D, Chunkankadai Circle-1, Aloor Road, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli Kanyakumari – 629 807. Pan: Aaffp 1746B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)/Cross Objector राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 41(1)

sales but had shown NIL sales in Sales Tax Returns. He has pointed out that the corroborative evidences available would point to the preponderance of probability that the assessee firm's books provided the true and correct account of purchases and not the books of account maintained by DVS Stores

“preponderance of probability”