“addition u/s 68”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 682,598 judgments

The decision most relied on for addition u/s 68 is CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), cited in 854 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on addition u/s 68

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court

854

citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.

299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court

426

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court

272

citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.

330 ITR 298 · 2011 · High Court

218

citing judgments

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

1) CIT v. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (

151 ITR 150 · 1985 · High Court

citing judgments

The assessee's burden under Section 68 to prove cash credits is discharged by establishing the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction; the assessee is not required to prove the creditor's source of funds or creditworthiness, as the department can use Section 131 for further investigation.

Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT

206 ITR 718 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits cannot be made when there is no actual cash credit or flow of funds, such as in cases of share swaps or notional credits.

Hastimal v. CIT

49 ITR 273 · 1963 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee's duty regarding the creditworthiness of a creditor is limited to the transactions between them, and they are not required to investigate the ultimate source of the creditor's funds. If the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness are established, no addition under Section 68 is permissible.

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra

301 ITR 404 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

An amount already credited in the books of account in an earlier assessment year cannot be added again as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act in a subsequent assessment year.

Judgments citing addition u/s 68

John D Silva, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 615/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Ravishankar S V

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

which shall be exercised judicially and not violating the principles of natural justice. 7. The learned AO concluded the assessment by making addition u/s 68 taxable for tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 15. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest ... about the persons from whom the SBN was received. It seems that the AO had not properly investigated the issue before imposing the addition u/s. 68 of the Act. The AO based on the cash receipts, had concluded that the cash receipts are not genuine and treated the same

Westcourt Hospitality Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3351/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Acit, Circle 25(1), Room Vs M/S. Westcourt Hospitality No. 192A, Cr Building, Pvt. Ltd. Ip Estate New-Delhi. 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Kunj, 110002 New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2018-19] M/S. Westcourt Hospitality Vs Acit, Circle 25(1),Room Pvt. Ltd. No. 192A, Cr Building, Ip 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Estate New-Delhi. 110002 Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 – Held, yes [Paras 11.4, 11.5 and 14.4] [In favour of assessee]” ………… 27. Regarding surrounding circumstances, it is observed that while making addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditors but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Westcourt Hospitality Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3294/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

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

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

which is unjustified, contrary to law, and liable to be deleted. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share application money received from M/s. Silver Heritage Nivas Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, however, has fully satisfied the conditions envisaged ... Department to rebut such evidence with cogent material, which the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge in the instant case before making addition u/s. 68. 6.0 Reliance is placed on the following decisions. Inter publicity (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 622/Mum/2021 order dated 17.10.2023 held as under; (Note

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

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

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

Shalini Srivastava, Haldwani vs. Ward 2(1)(1) Haldwani/, Haldwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 121/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year :2019-20] Shalini Srivastava Vs Ward-2(1)(1) Sheeshmahal, Opp. Haldwani Filter House, Uttarakhand Kathgodam, Haldwani, Uttarakhand-263139 Pan-Apyps8567D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Kackar, Ca Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10096852 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income, Declaring Income From House Property Of Inr 51,754/- & Income Under The Head “Other Sources” Of Inr 17,56,736/-. The Total Income Of Inr 18,08,490/- Was Claimed As Set Off Against The Current Year Losses From Business & Profession Of Inr 31,04,998/- & Thus Total Income At Inr Nil Was Declared After Claiming Of Deduction Under Chapter Via Of Inr 1,56,918/-. The Return Of Income Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. Notices U/S 143(2) Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time Which Were Not Complied With. In Absence Of Any Reply By The Assessee, Order Was Passed U/S 144 As Per Information Available & Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 13,32,38,065/- By Making Various Addition.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming the addition U/s 68 of the Act amounting to 13,32,38,065.00 against facts and law. 2. The Appellant respectfully, submits as under:- 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income

Rajul Jayendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6512/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

received from assessee's father and remaining was out of her own income and savings. 11. It was therefore the prayer that the addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit was without any basis, liable to deleted. 12. Ld Sr. DR representing the revenue on the other hand

Atishay Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5714/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

provision of section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable as we uphold the trading additions in the instant case or no addition u/s 68 is uphold by us. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.12.2025. (SATBEER SINGH

Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 691/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Magnifique Gems Private Limited Income Tax Officer, 105 Rajshree Building, Maniyara Ward-1(1)(4) Sheri Na Naka, Surat, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Income Tax Gujarat- 395003 Colony, Athwa, Surat, Gujarat- 395001 Pan No. Aagcm 5160 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

because the cash was deposited during demonetization period, it cannot be considered as the 9 Magnifique Gems Private Limited ground to make the addition u/s 68 as cash credit. If it would have not been deposited in the bank after 31st December 2016, it would have become invalid and that

Kunal Vyas, Indore vs. ITO 4(1), Ind, Main Building, Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Sijariya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 68Section 69

order deserves to be set aside / quashed. (4) Because both the lower authorities erred in law in making as also in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act. They failed to appreciate that for invoking the provisions of section 68 the AO must satisfy himself that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2280/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Siddheshwarivyapaar Pvt Ltd Kolkata 2Nd Floor, 159, Ravindra Sarani Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aancs 2337 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shrisoumitra Choudhury & Rainak Jain, Advocates सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenueagainst The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Dated 06.05.2025For The Assessment Year2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 69 Days. Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Cit-Dr & Looking To The Facts Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,82,00,000/- Made U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits Received From Shell Entities In The Guise Of Share Capital.

For Appellant: ShriSoumitra Choudhury and Rainak Jain, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

cases , the subscribers have not responded by furnishing any details before the Assessing Officer. But that can not be the basis for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. We even note that the assessments were framed u/s 143(3) of the Act in some cases of subscribers which

Ketan Anand, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45, Delhi

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5195/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ketan Anand Ito- Ward 45, Delhi. 100C Dda Janta Flat Shivaji Vs Enclave, Delhi-110027 [Pan:Arupk6159P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Adv & Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Adv (Through Vc) & Sh. K.K. Panday, Adv Revenue By Sh. Virendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 26.08.2025 Date Of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

giving the finding on following grounds: (i) The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on fact in making addition u/s 68. (ii) That the provision of section 68 is not applicable because the transaction has not been recorded in books of account. (iii) That the notice

Shri Harsh Kumar Thapar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2751/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harsh Kumar Thapar, Vs. Ito, A-92, Ganga Sagar Colony, Ward-1(3), Ganga Nagar, Meerut. Mawana Road, Meerut. Pan: Abmpt3630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 6ASection 80C

appellant-assessee submitted that: 5.1 Under grounds No.1 to 5, the appellant seeks to challenge the action of authorities below justifying the additions u/s 68 of Rs. 16,68,000/-, Rs.80,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- aggregating Rs.22,48,000/-. 5.2 The addition ... assessment order at page 6 therein. In view of above facts, the lower authorities was not justified in making addition u/s 68 of IT Act when loan was repaid for which reliance is placed in co-ordinate Bench decision in case of ITO vs RMP Holding P Ltd ITA No.5089/Del/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dhanbad vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Private Limited, Dhanbad

ITA 240/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad.….……………............................……….……Appellant Vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd….........……........……...…..…..Respondent House No.41, Premises Of Punj Kumar Singh, Near Suraksha Clinic, Hetli Bandh, Jharia, Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 828111. [Pan: Aaecb0160D] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd 4.1 The ld. DR stated that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the said addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.5,61,00,000/- was without considering that the director of the assessee company was not produced to prove source ... u/s 131 or they failed to appear before Assessing Officer the loans could not be treated as non-genuine and therefore deleted the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 5.3 In regard to the disallowance of Rs.60,48,903/- on account of rebate to customers, the ld. AR submitted that

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bengaluru, Bmtc Building, Koramangala vs. Shubhankar Estates Private Limited, Bangalore, Lalbagh Road

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1917/BANG/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Summons u/s 131 of the Act and the directors of the assessee company itself had been show caused to explain as to why addition u/s 68 of the Act should not be made? Shubhankar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 11 3. Further, the revenue has raised following additional ... appeal of the revenue. 10. The ld. D.R. on the other hand, vehemently submitted that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating that the AO issued summon u/s 131 of the Shubhankar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

Nidhi Rani, Panipat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Srkm Steel (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Srkm Steel (P) Ltd. Tax, Circle-1 Lokhra Road Babylon, Post Aayakar Bhawan, G.S. Road, Office-Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Christian Basti, 781034, Assam Guwahati-781005, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

years. In our opinion, once the assessee has established that loans were repaid in the subsequent assessment years with cogent evidences then the addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be made. We have also gone through the written submission filed by the ld. DR however, in view

Belong Tracom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Dibrugahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 254/GTY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrimanomohan Das, Jm Belong Tracom Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) 3, Mullick Street, Kolkata- C.R. Building, Mancotta Road, Vs. 700007, West Bengal Dibrugarh-786008, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb0435D Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Thereafter, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and also replied by the assessee. Finally, the ld. AO made an addition u/s 68 of the Act of ₹1,35,00,000/- in respect of unexplained share application money received from five parties, which is discussed at page

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1760/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee are allowed.” 6.5 Going over the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the said addition u/s 68 of the Act is deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 18th December, 2025. Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] Accountant

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan, Kolkata

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

ITA 1757/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata……...…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan……………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1, R N Mukherjee Road, Dalhousie, Kol-1.. [Pan: Alkpk2298K] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 Of The Cit(A)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 04 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

appeal before us. The ld. DR challenges the very impugned order by submitting that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act but agreed on the point that the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 147/144 of the Act without considering the documentary