← All Phrases

“genuineness of the transaction”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 685,938 judgments

The decision most relied on for genuineness of the transaction is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on genuineness of the transaction

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

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.

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO
154 ITR 148 · 1985 · Supreme Court
741
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

Judgments citing genuineness of the transaction

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

subscriber which is beyond doubts as the AO himself observed that he is one of the director of the assessee. The Second is Genuineness of the transaction which is also not in dispute as all the funds were transferred through banking channel. Third is creditworthiness of the subscriber which ... transactions as executed between the Assessee and its creditors. It is no part of the Assessee's burden to prove either the genuineness of the transactions executed between the creditors and the sub-creditors nor is it the burden of the Assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the sub-creditors

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

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

subscriber which is beyond doubts as the AO himself observed that he is one of the director of the assessee. The Second is Genuineness of the transaction which is also not in dispute as all the funds were transferred through banking channel. Third is creditworthiness of the subscriber which ... transactions as executed between the Assessee and its creditors. It is no part of the Assessee's burden to prove either the genuineness of the transactions executed between the creditors and the sub-creditors nor is it the burden of the Assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the sub-creditors

Aggarwal Agro Industries, Karnal vs. ITO-Ward-1, Karnal

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

ITA 2544/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manav Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69C

year including those in question. All the necessary documents with regard to these transactions are being submitted alongwith this reply to prove the genuineness of the transactions; (ii) Assessee have duly declared all the transactions in the quarterly VAT returns filed with the HVAT Authorities Karnal; 3 that ... established by various court judgments like Concept Communication Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) (v) If Assessing Officer is still not convinced with the genuineness of the transactions, assessee seek an opportunity to cross examine the party on whose statement the department is relying upon. In the case of Bhatia Diamonds

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

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

ITA 342/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that such transactions were sham OR lacking in commercial substance. The learned AO, in fact, accepted the genuineness of the transactions, and no mismatch in quantitative OR financial records was established. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Perumal Sekar, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(2). Salem, Salem

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

ITA 1830/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Goutami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

above 6 persons in respect of loans totaling to Rs.23,00,000/- have discharged the onus cast upon him to prove the genuineness of the transactions by disclosing identity of the lenders. The AO within the powers vested with him u/s 133(6) of the Act nor the first appellate ... tune of Rs.23.00 Lakhs by furnishing the confirmations from 6 persons with their Aadhar and PAN and discharged his onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions. He stated that the balance amount of deposit of Rs.20.23 lakhs is made out of the cash withdrawals from the bank account

Jigna Kundan Bhatt, Virar vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5265/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Cen. Cir. 1(1), Jigna Kundan Bhatt R. No. 903, 9Th Floor, Plot No. 277, Kundan Pratistha Bhavan, M. Mansion, Agashi Road, Vs. K. Road, Mumbai- Virar (W), Dist-Thane, 400 020 Thane, Maharashtra- 401303 Pan/Gir No. Afdpb3867Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Gandhi: Rs. 10,00,000/- iii. 4. The assessee was called upon to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions. According to the Assessing Officer, despite issuance of notices and opportunities granted, the assessee failed to furnish confirmations, copies of returns of income ... relied upon the following judicial precedents to submit that the assessee is required to establish only the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, and once primary evidences are furnished, no addition can be made merely on suspicion:  CIT v. Orissa Corporation

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Varun Vimlesh Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3728/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

matter the three essential tests while confirming the pre-proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identify and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it was found ... with the details of quantity, and the consideration received. 5. 2. Admittedly, assessee discharged its onus by filing the primary evidence to establish genuineness of the transactions. It is noted that, Ld.AO has not disputed any of these primary evidences filed by assessee. It is thus evident that the revenue

ACIT-16(3), Fourth Floor vs. Muffazal Lakdawala, Rna Mirage S.K Ahire Marg

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3254/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2020-21 Acit – 16 (3), Muffazal Lakdawala, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Worli Mumbai – 400018. Mumbai – 400020. Pan – Aacpl 2097 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Sh. Priyank Ghia A/W Ms. Simoni Shah, Ld. Ars. Revenue By : Sh. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 14.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Had Taken/Received Unsecured Loan To The Tune Of Rs. 3,28,42,847/- In Total From The Lenders, As Detailed Below: - Anjuman E Mohammadi – 1,50,00,000/- Reshma Jai Ram Shetty – 1,75,00,000/- Digestive Health Institute By Dr. Muffi Pvt. Ltd. – 3,42,847/-

For Appellant: Sh. Priyank Ghia a/w Ms. Simoni Shah, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R
Section 133Section 250Section 68

peculiar facts and circumstances and the documents submitted by the assessee, ultimately held that the identity and credit worthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction is established and consequently, the addition under Section 68 may be deleted. 6. The Revenue Department being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal

Ratori Maa Trading P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4485/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandraratori Maa Trading P. Ltd. Vs Ito M-98, 2Nd Floor, Jagat Ward -21(1) Rampark, Laxmi Nagar, New C. R. Building, New Delhi Delhipan: Aaecr0612A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi Dated

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

would indicate a full disclosure of facts in regard to either the credit worthiness of the companies which made the investments or the genuineness of the transaction and when a cloud was cast on the genuineness of the transaction once a search took place at the prenises of the Chartered

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 6112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which can justify that the above parties have not supplied goods or provided any services to the assessee ... able to find the vendors in their Supply Chain Tracking System. Accordingly, the AO held that these facts themselves raised questions on the genuineness of the transactions done with such vendors. As regards the retraction by two of the individuals, whose statement was recorded during the search, the AO held

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5965/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which can justify that the above parties have not supplied goods or provided any services to the assessee ... able to find the vendors in their Supply Chain Tracking System. Accordingly, the AO held that these facts themselves raised questions on the genuineness of the transactions done with such vendors. As regards the retraction by two of the individuals, whose statement was recorded during the search, the AO held

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5964/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which can justify that the above parties have not supplied goods or provided any services to the assessee ... able to find the vendors in their Supply Chain Tracking System. Accordingly, the AO held that these facts themselves raised questions on the genuineness of the transactions done with such vendors. As regards the retraction by two of the individuals, whose statement was recorded during the search, the AO held

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5963/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which can justify that the above parties have not supplied goods or provided any services to the assessee ... able to find the vendors in their Supply Chain Tracking System. Accordingly, the AO held that these facts themselves raised questions on the genuineness of the transactions done with such vendors. As regards the retraction by two of the individuals, whose statement was recorded during the search, the AO held

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5962/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which can justify that the above parties have not supplied goods or provided any services to the assessee ... able to find the vendors in their Supply Chain Tracking System. Accordingly, the AO held that these facts themselves raised questions on the genuineness of the transactions done with such vendors. As regards the retraction by two of the individuals, whose statement was recorded during the search, the AO held

Bhavika Ravi Sukhija, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Central)-Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5220/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Haresh P. KhunadiaFor Respondent: 17/12/2025
Section 132Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

substantial evidence of the genuineness of 10/12/2022 asking for substantial evidence of the genuineness of 10/12/2022 asking for substantial evidence of the genuineness of the transaction, concluded that the transaction was an unexplained the transaction, concluded that the transaction was an unexplained the transaction, concluded that the transaction ... discovery of an excel Shri Ashish Begwani and his associates. The discovery of an excel Bhavika Ravi Sukhija serious doubt on the genuineness of the transaction. serious doubt on the genuineness of the transaction. 7.1.7 Furthermore, the statement of Shri Vikash Agrawal, a director 7.1.7 Furthermore, the statement of Shri

Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak, Borivali Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 32 3 Mumbai Presently Dy C I T Circle 42 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4914/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak Acit-32(3) 4, Shree Bhalchandra Kripa Presently Cit, Circle Building, Daulat Nagar Road Vs. 42(3)(1) No. 3, Borivali East Kautilya Bhavan Bkc, Mumbai-400 066. Mumbai-51. Pan : Agbpp5972D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, Ld. ADVFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

bank statement reflecting receipts from sale of shares and demat statement for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, in order to demonstrate the genuineness of the transaction and to discharge the prima-facie onus cast u/s 68 and 69C of the Act. 5. Recently, the Co- ordinate Bench

Sunita Grovar, Panipat, Haryana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rohta, Rohtak Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3608/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunita Grover, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income T-7, Industrial Area, Panipat, Tax, Rohtak Pin: 132 103 (Haryana) Haryana Pan: Afmpg8500N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 147Section 263

utilized the Verification Unit to verify the existence of the parties. The Ld. AO came to the conclusion that the genuineness of the transactions made with the three aforementioned entities could not be established with supporting evidences and thus, the said transactions were bogus. The Ld. AO passed the final

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Surender Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed as discussed hereinabove

ITA 2873/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.1670 To 1672/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Surender Gupta, Dy. Cit, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Central Circle-30, H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit, Surender Gupta, Central Circle-1, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Noida. Vs. H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patwari, Adv. & Shri Aakash Ojha, Adv. Department By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Three Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A) In Short”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act In Short”], All Are Dated 24.02.2025 Against The Orders Of The Assessing Officer U/S 153A R.W.S Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 Surender Gupta Vs. Dcit 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Respectively.

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

made with the assessee. Also, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings failed to discharge the burden of proving their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi has erred

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Noida vs. Surender Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed as discussed hereinabove

ITA 2872/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.1670 To 1672/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Surender Gupta, Dy. Cit, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Central Circle-30, H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit, Surender Gupta, Central Circle-1, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Noida. Vs. H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patwari, Adv. & Shri Aakash Ojha, Adv. Department By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Three Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A) In Short”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act In Short”], All Are Dated 24.02.2025 Against The Orders Of The Assessing Officer U/S 153A R.W.S Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 Surender Gupta Vs. Dcit 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Respectively.

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

made with the assessee. Also, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings failed to discharge the burden of proving their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi has erred

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle I Noida, Noida vs. Surender Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed as discussed hereinabove

ITA 2871/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.1670 To 1672/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Surender Gupta, Dy. Cit, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Central Circle-30, H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit, Surender Gupta, Central Circle-1, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Noida. Vs. H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patwari, Adv. & Shri Aakash Ojha, Adv. Department By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Three Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A) In Short”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act In Short”], All Are Dated 24.02.2025 Against The Orders Of The Assessing Officer U/S 153A R.W.S Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 Surender Gupta Vs. Dcit 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Respectively.

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

made with the assessee. Also, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings failed to discharge the burden of proving their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi has erred