← All Phrases

“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
79
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
77
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
57
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
47
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

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 13, Delhi

ITA 2308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

order, cannot be ignored. He contended that in various coordinate benches decision it is held that CIT(A) if changes the provision of addition u/s 68 etc. then same is fatal and same is outside scope of power of CIT(A), so present case stands on stronger footing where

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

ITA 2306/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

order, cannot be ignored. He contended that in various coordinate benches decision it is held that CIT(A) if changes the provision of addition u/s 68 etc. then same is fatal and same is outside scope of power of CIT(A), so present case stands on stronger footing where

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

ITA 2305/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

order, cannot be ignored. He contended that in various coordinate benches decision it is held that CIT(A) if changes the provision of addition u/s 68 etc. then same is fatal and same is outside scope of power of CIT(A), so present case stands on stronger footing where

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is hereby dismissed

ITA 3876/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Central Circle 20, Vs. Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd., Delhi. 239, Phase – Iii, Okhla, Delhi – 110 020. (Pan : Aafcm8367C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

finding of the AO and invited our attention to para 8.2 of the assessment order wherein the AO given his finding for addition u/s 68 as under :- “It is hard to believe that M/s Devarsi Constructions Private Limited has undergone the said transaction just to self-inflict/manufacture a loss

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Charan Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4522/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Ito, Vs M/S. Charan Renewable Ward-6(1),C.R. Building, Pvt.Ltd., A-24, New Krishna New Delhi Park, Near Viaks Puri, New Delhi-110018. Pan-Aaect0790K Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee. Accordingly, AO concluded that these companies are not having creditworthiness to subscribe the shares of the assessee company and therefore, made the addition u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 3. Against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 712/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

assessee has been prompted on the basis of a search and seizure action carried out at "Banka Group of Kolkata. The impugned addition u/s 68 was made in AY 2013-14, and the search was done on 01/10/2018, nearly five years after the appellant took out the loans. The entries ... against which assessee has preferred a cross objection. Written Submissions on appeal of Revenue: No valid Jurisdiction u/s 153A: 1 The impugned addition u/s 68 was made in AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016- 17 and 2017-18 and the search was done on 01/10/2018, nearly five years after

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

ITA 711/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

assessee has been prompted on the basis of a search and seizure action carried out at "Banka Group of Kolkata. The impugned addition u/s 68 was made in AY 2013-14, and the search was done on 01/10/2018, nearly five years after the appellant took out the loans. The entries ... against which assessee has preferred a cross objection. Written Submissions on appeal of Revenue: No valid Jurisdiction u/s 153A: 1 The impugned addition u/s 68 was made in AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016- 17 and 2017-18 and the search was done on 01/10/2018, nearly five years after

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

assessee has been prompted on the basis of a search and seizure action carried out at "Banka Group of Kolkata. The impugned addition u/s 68 was made in AY 2013-14, and the search was done on 01/10/2018, nearly five years after the appellant took out the loans. The entries ... against which assessee has preferred a cross objection. Written Submissions on appeal of Revenue: No valid Jurisdiction u/s 153A: 1 The impugned addition u/s 68 was made in AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016- 17 and 2017-18 and the search was done on 01/10/2018, nearly five years after

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 709/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

assessee has been prompted on the basis of a search and seizure action carried out at "Banka Group of Kolkata. The impugned addition u/s 68 was made in AY 2013-14, and the search was done on 01/10/2018, nearly five years after the appellant took out the loans. The entries ... against which assessee has preferred a cross objection. Written Submissions on appeal of Revenue: No valid Jurisdiction u/s 153A: 1 The impugned addition u/s 68 was made in AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016- 17 and 2017-18 and the search was done on 01/10/2018, nearly five years after

B D Cotton Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 19(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

payments made to M/s. Agrawal Enterprise cannot be accepted and proceeded to add a sum of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- as addition u/s 68 treating the amount received by the assessee from M/s Omrim Security Ltd. as non-genuine. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. P & R Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6058/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Vs P& R Engineering Services Dcit, Circle-19(1), Pvt.Ltd., 89, Lok Nayak New Delhi Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan-Aaccp0484E Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri V. K.Agarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi -31 [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 01.11.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-7/10212/2017-18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The Act, In Short] For A.Y. 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2010, Declaring Loss Of Rs. 12,89,624/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act On 30.09.2017. In Response, The Assessee Has Declared The Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter The Ao By Alleging That The Assessee Has Received Share Application Money Of Rs. 8,28,45,000/- From Three Companies Namely, M/S Mansarovar Holdings Ltd. Rs. 4,09,00,000/-, M/S Olipha Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Of Rs. 3,27,10,000/- & From M/S Sopan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Of Rs. 92,35,000/- Which Companies Are Paper Companies & Made The Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Of The Entire Amount Of Loan Received From These Three Companies.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

from M/s Sopan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 92,35,000/- which companies are paper companies and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act of the entire amount of loan received from these three companies. 3. Against the said order, assessee preferred an appeal against CIT(A) who deleted ... assessee and simply relied on the information of the Investigation Wing and accepted the same as gospel truth for making impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. 13. After duly considering the assessment order, documents/ information provided by the assessee during appellate proceedings as well as in view

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 480/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 127Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) vs Agson Global Pvt Ltd “dismissed a bunch of appeals against deletion of addition u/s 68 towards Share capital/ share premium, bogus purchases and deposit in bank account vide judgment delivered on 19.01.2022. It has held that where the ITAT decided

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad, Income Tax Vejalpur Office Near Sachin Tower vs. Arvindbhai Jewellers Private Limited, Opp Lal Banglow Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1113/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward-1(1)(3) Vs. Arvindbhai Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. 408/5, Arvindbhai House C.G. Road, Opp: Lal Bunglow, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaeac 9595 R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Arti N. Shah, Ar : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Arti N. Shah, AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

record as to the defect in the books or shortcomings in the evidence produced. In view of the above, I find that the addition u/s 68 made by the A.O and the rejection of books are not justified on the basis of the material evidence and facts on record. Accordingly

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Oscar Infra Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. Oscar Infra Pvt Ltd Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, Office No. 707, 7Th Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Floor, Everest Nivara, Churchgate, Mumbai – Infotech Park, Plot No. 400020. D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Pan/Gir No. Aabco0152H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 70(2)

goes to show the Assessee has been able to discharge its onus cast upon u/s 68 of the Act and therefore no addition u/s 68 of the Act is warranted. Further, the Assessee by producing the relevant documents such as books of accounts, bank statement, contract notes of shares, broker

Sanjay Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2255/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanjay Malhotra, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (3), Hs – 23, Second Floor, Kailash Colony, Delhi. New Delhi – 122 002. (Pan : Aaipm0514F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Order : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 27.10.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.15,06,840/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Further we observe that the assessee had already declared the sales and offered to tax. The cash sales cannot be subjected to addition u/s 68 or 69 of the Act. It leads to the situation wherein the same income is subjected to tax twice. Therefore, we are inclined to allow

Shivansh Dairy Products Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1087/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshivansh Dairy Products Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 26/6, Plot No.4, Nangli Sakrawati Indl. Area, Delhi. Near Main Najafgarh Road, New Delhi – 110 043. (Pan : Aarcs9344P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shantanu Jain, Advocate Shri Deepanshu Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Order : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘The Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 11.01.2024 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.6,16,930/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass For The Following Reason :- “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period As Compared To Pre-Demonetization Period.”

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

justify the cash sales which are without name and address even the cash sales exceeding Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and filed grounds of appeal and detailed submissions ... case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld AO in making an addition u/s 68 of the Act and charging tax as per section 115BBE of the Act, without considering the facts of the case.” 8. At the time

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 859/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officergrossly erred in making an addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of partners capital introduced of Rs.10,00,000/- after treating the same as unexplained cash credits.’’ ITA NO. 859/JPR/2025

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 858/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officergrossly erred in making an addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of partners capital introduced of Rs.10,00,000/- after treating the same as unexplained cash credits.’’ ITA NO. 859/JPR/2025

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1536/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

case of ‘Prashant Pratap Ahir vs ACIT ITA No. 1954/PUN/2018’ the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had held that “addition u/s 68 of the IT Act merely on the basis of presumption or suspicion without any corroborated evidence is unsustainable.” b) Further, the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1535/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

case of ‘Prashant Pratap Ahir vs ACIT ITA No. 1954/PUN/2018’ the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had held that “addition u/s 68 of the IT Act merely on the basis of presumption or suspicion without any corroborated evidence is unsustainable.” b) Further, the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta