<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (6) TMI 1390 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773277</link>
    <description>The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s dismissal of the appeal in limine for want of prosecution, finding no error where the assessee failed to provide corroborative evidence supporting cash deposit explanations despite multiple opportunities. The tribunal rejected the jurisdictional challenge to reassessment proceedings under section 147, holding that additions for unexplained cash deposits were connected to the original reason for reopening (unsecured loan inquiry) and fell within the same factual chain. However, regarding the section 68 addition for unexplained cash credits in ICICI Bank accounts, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the quantum issue to the AO with directions to verify the nature of deposits, examine accommodation entry patterns similar to previous assessment year 2012-13, and estimate commission income if warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:34:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1390 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773277</link>
      <description>The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s dismissal of the appeal in limine for want of prosecution, finding no error where the assessee failed to provide corroborative evidence supporting cash deposit explanations despite multiple opportunities. The tribunal rejected the jurisdictional challenge to reassessment proceedings under section 147, holding that additions for unexplained cash deposits were connected to the original reason for reopening (unsecured loan inquiry) and fell within the same factual chain. However, regarding the section 68 addition for unexplained cash credits in ICICI Bank accounts, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the quantum issue to the AO with directions to verify the nature of deposits, examine accommodation entry patterns similar to previous assessment year 2012-13, and estimate commission income if warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>