← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)13,466 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Kanchanba Education Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Ac/DCIT. Circle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1566/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(7)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

after claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act aggregating to Rs. 5,77,26,463/-. While processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, CPC Bengaluru disallowed the entire claim of exemption on the ground that Form 10B, which was required to be furnished ... Bench of the Tribunal in Shree Vardhman Stanakvasi Jain Shravak Trust v. ITO, ITA No.1881/Ahd/2024, vide order dated 14.02.2025 examined the scope of section 143(1), the nature of Form 10B compliance, and the binding effect of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Association of Indian

Sidhesh Mohan Raikar, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Banglore

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

ITA 294/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahkar
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 5A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

M/S. Blue Bird Technicks Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2256/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2256/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) M/S Blue Bird Technicks Pvt Ltd Vs Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Plot 9B, Uttara Commercial Complex, Kolkata, West Bengal-700067 Pan No. :Aadcb 3601 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai, Dated 07.08.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Supply Of Telecom & Signal Parts To Indian Railways. It Was Submission That The Total Income Of The Assessee Was For The Impugned Assessment Was Rs.70,01,266/-. It Was Submission That In The Course Of Assessment, The Ao Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.51,37,428/- Paid By The Assessee To M/S Dharavee Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. As Commission Claiming The Same As Bogus Commission . The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Actual Commission Paid Was Of Rs.57,72,416/-. The Ld.Ar Drew Our Attention To The Confirmation On Accounts Provided By M/S Dharavee Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Which Reads As Follows:-

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

Sikha Rani De, Bankura vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 1750/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

taken and to adduce paper/s and document/s at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 30/08/2018 by the CPC in which certain adjustment was made and against which the assessee filed an appeal ... assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal however the grounds of appeal mentioned relate to the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and not to the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined

Sha Kalidas Pragji Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 6575/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra
Section 143(1)Section 250

referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Intimation Order, dated 16/12/2019, passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. That ... submitted that the appeal was filed within period of 30 days of receipts of Intimation Order, dated 16/12/2019, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). 4. Countering the above submissions, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted

Sonmarg Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 3 1, Piramal Chamber Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5627/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 154(8)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

erred in not condoning delay in filing of the appeal against the order passed in gross violation of the provisions of section 143(1)/154 of the Act, thereby denying substantial justice to the assessee. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned ... made by the CPC Bangalore by way of adjustment and intimation u/s. 143(1)/154 is beyond the scope of section 143(1)/154 of Income Tax Act 1961 and therefore requires to be deleted. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CPC erred

M/S Robust Transportation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4803/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

consideration, the assessee e-filed its return of income on 30 October 2017 declaring total income at nil. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, the two flagged issues being: (i) verification of expenditure debited

Richa Finance & Investment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed and the addition u/s 68 for Rs

ITA 4252/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Snatan Dharm Sabha, Mukerian vs. Income Tax Officer Ward( Exemptions), Jalandhar

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

ITA 290/ASR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 11Section 12Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Gurminder Singh, Ambala City vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ambala, Ambala Cantt

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 887/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.887/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2024-25) Sh. Gurminder Singh Ito Ward-2 बनाम/ Vs. H.No.1998, Sec.9, Urban Estate Ambala 133001 Ambala City – 134003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cidps-7267-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Gurminder Singh (Assessee-In-Person) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Moatenla (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee In Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25 Is Quantum Of Rebate U/S 87A. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur [Cit(A)] On 27-05- 2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 23-03- 2025. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Gurminder Singh (Assessee-in-person)For Respondent: Smt. Moatenla (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 112A(6)Section 143(1)Section 87ASection 9

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Shramik Vikas Sansthan, Vadodara vs. The Incometax Officer (Exemption) Ward Exemption Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleshramik Vikas Sansthan, The Income-Tax Officer Vs. 1, Shram Sadhna, (Exemption), Opp. Police Ground, Raopura, Ward Exemption, Vadodara-390001 Vadodara [Pan : Aaats 7052 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Veparai, Ar Respondent By: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Veparai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Vivekanand Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 2120/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 6, Pune

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

ITA 201/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.201/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Rolon Seals International, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 947/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.947/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Rolon Seals International, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 063. Vs. Ward-11(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aarfr2216G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

mechanical exercise 9 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Since the return of Income is filed beyond the due date specified u/s.139(1), I do not find any reason

Hari Krishna Leela Prasad Paladugu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 798/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

declaring total income of Rs.10,79,200/-. The return of income filed by the assessee has been accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and there was no scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the A.O., the Joint Commissioner of Income

Samhith Fintech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1356/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1356/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) M/S Samhith Fintech Vs. Dy.Cit Private Limited, Circle 3 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablcs1930Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Srinivas Bharath Nk, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Bharath NK, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 192Section 199

inadvertently did not claim credit of the said TDS. Consequently, the Centralized Processing Centre (“CPC”), while processing the return of the assessee under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide intimation dated 29.10.2024, did not grant credit for the TDS. 4. Aggrieved with the intimation

Ntt Data Business Solutios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 489/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in considering the income determined under 6 ITA.No.489/Hyd./2022 section 143(1)(a) for computing the total assessed income instead of considering income declared by the Appellant in the return of income and in doing

Gvr Ashoka Chennai Corr Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2621/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: 20.11.2025
Section 140A(1)Section 143(1)Section 234A

assessee paid the entire self- assessment tax liability amounting to Rs.2,47,89,580/- on 26.02.2022. The return was processed by CPC under section 143(1). While the issue relating to short grant of TDS was subsequently rectified, CPC continued to levy interest under section 234A up to March

Vivek Kamalkar Kadam, Virar West vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6162/MUM/2025[ 2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2016-17 Vivek Kamalkar Kadam Income Tax Officer, Namasthetubunglow No. 2, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Road, Padmavati Nagar Phase 4, Near Vs. 16Z, Wagale Industrial Road, Mamta Super Market, Bolinj, Thane – 400604, Maharashtra. Virar West, Vasai – Virar, Maharashtra – 401305. [Pan: Adqpk2053E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jitendra Singh For Revenue : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Delhi, Dated 30-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of 12,50,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act, Being Part Of Loan Repayment, Ignoring That The Appellant Had Discharged The Initial Burden By Providing Comprehensive Evidence Of The Source, Including Affidavit, Confirmation, Itr & Audited Accounts Of Shri Shaikh, Which Establish Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transaction.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

filed his return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 on 02.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.5,02,690/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) system for the purpose