“addition u/s 68”

Srithik Ispat Private Limited, Goa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) Panaji, Goa, Panaji

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2016-17 Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 3, Sanguem Industrial Estate, Sanguem, Goa-403704 Pan : Aaics1765P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By: Mrs Girija Agrawal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Din & Order No 1068425181(1) Dt. 06/09/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Originated From Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. [‘Ld. Ao’].

addition u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of failure to deduct TDS (2) ₹42,41,967- addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit upon assessee’s failure to substantiate closing cash balance (3) further addition of ₹98,54,509/- towards advances remained unexplained u/s 68

Anuj Satishkumar Bansal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1267/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Anuj Satishkumar Bansal, Vs. Ito, 302, Shri Hari Appartment, Piplod Ward – 1(3)(1), Road Near Lancer Army School, Surat Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bwxpb3655C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

u/s 69A of the Act is not unjustified and liable to be deleted. Even otherwise, the impugned amount are also not liable for addition u/s 68 of the Act in view of the details furnished by the appellant and the authoritative precedents by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

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

Incme Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Swarna Sukh, Bhopal

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

assessee was computed and assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.68 of the Act as under:- Return of income Rs.14,26,761/- Add: Addition u/s 68 on account of Unexplained cash credit Assessed income Assessed income U/s 288A Rs.3,43,59,000/- Rs.3,57,85,761/- Rs.3,57,85,761/- 2.24 That ... justify the sales of jewellery to its customers and upon failure by the assessee as has happened in the instant case the addition u/s 68 of the Act is a must. The “impugned order” of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law. It is erroneously held that sales

Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, Surajpur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 363/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

considering and carefully examine the replies of the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) with the following additions: (i) Addition u/s 68 of Rs.29,00,000/- (ii) Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iv) of Rs.16,03,090/-. 3 Vinay Kumar Jaiswal vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

Savitri Devi, Bhojpur vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

parte. During the course of the appeal, the Ld. AR I.T.A. No.: 571/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Savitri Devi. submitted that the addition u/s 68 of the Act was made without comparing the deposits in previous and subsequent months and the order u/s 144 r.w.s

Three Seasons Exim Limited, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.94/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2028-19 ) Three Season Exim Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Kakinada Ward-1 Pan:Aafct1751M Kakinada (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 291 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit Duly Signed By The Director Of The Assessee Company. The Learned Ar Of Page 1 Of 8

have considered the rival submissions as well as perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer has made an addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act in respect of the share capital introduced which was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT (A). The assessee filed