TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....w.s 143(3)/254 of the Act. 2. This is second round of litigation. Briefly speaking, the background is the assessee, being an individual did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. A search u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in M/s Triveni Group on 29.09.2010. Assessee was also included in the search. Notice u/s. 153A was issued in response to which the assessee did not file any return. Later on, assessee filed return on 10.12.2012, declaring total income at Rs. 6,240/-. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.12.2012. Assessment proceedings u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act were competed on 25.03.2013, determining the income at Rs. 2,44,13,240/- after making addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- on account of unex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. 80C of the Act. 6. Aggrieved revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- "1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000 made by the A.O on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer, hence the order of the Ld.CIT(A) suffers from serious infirmities in appreciation of facts and law resulting in deleting of a validly made addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000 u/s 68 of the Act and therefore the same to deserves to be restored. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee had discharged the onus under section 68 merely by produci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. ..................................................." 7. We have perused the records. None responded for the respondent assessee. Heard ld CIT DR for the appellant revenue. 8. The main point that arises for consideration under appeal is as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act? 9. Ld CIT DR has submitted that assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions in question before the assessing officer in compliance of the tribunal order. Ld CIT(DR), thus supports the assessment order and prays to allow the appeal. 10. We have gone through the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 passed by ld CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmations of cash receipts, correlating the cash deposits with the dates of receipt from the respective parties. 5.4 Moreover, the appellant has fulfilled the requirements under Section 68 by establishing: Identity: The identities of TIDCO (PAN: AACCT3870A), M/s Garg Commodities, M/s Mohan Commodities, and M/s Radhika Construction Co. were disclosed through their PANs, confirmations, and legal documents, which were accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment of TIDCO and other entities. Creditworthiness: The financial statements of TIDCO, including shareholder funds and loan funds, substantiate the creditworthiness of the transactions. These were previously accepted by the Assessing Officer in TIDCO's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.6 The judicial rulings cited by the appellant, including CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd., CIT v. Suresh Chand Mittal, CIT v. Simit P. Sheth, CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jai Shree Radheyshyam Enterprises v. CIT, and CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., consistently hold that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof under Section 68 by establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to provide evidence to the contrary. 5.7 Furthermore, the prior ruling by Ld. CIT(A)-III, New Delhi, in the appellant's own case on 23.07.2014, which deleted the same addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/-, supports the appellant's contention. The AO's repetition of the add....