DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR V. SHRI. ASHISH NATHA CHAKKARWAR, PUSAD

ITA 433/NAG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Nagpur against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Nagpur, which had deleted an addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000 on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the facts and evidence on record, including the absence of complete sales and purchase bills for the relevant financial year. The assessee's representative argued that the tax effect involved was below the threshold limit for filing an appeal. The CIT-DR sought to verify the tax effect stated in the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839988 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PANKAJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P. M. GANDHI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Tax effect
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “NAGPUR” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 433/NAG/2025 (AY: 2014-15) (Physical hearing) DCIT, CC–1(1), 2nd Floor, Room No. 205, Aayakar Bhawan, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001 Vs Shri Ashish Natha Chakkarwar, Moti Nagar, Tilak Ward, Pusad, Maharashtra – 445204. [PAN: AEGPC2887R] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri P. M. Gandhi, CA Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT–DR Date of hearing 27.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.02.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 09/05/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made in the Assessment order without appreciating the facts as brought on record. Printed from counselvise.com Shri Ashish Natha Chakkarwar ITA No. 433/Nag/2025 2 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to submit the details of sale book and purchase book for last three years prior to the relevant previous year 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that assessee had not submitted complete sales bills and purchase bills for the relevant financial year. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on evidence produced during appellate proceedings without allowing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examining the same as required under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 2. At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is only of `. 36,43,229/– which is less than the threshold limit of `. 60,00,000/– for filing appeal before the Tribunal. 3. On the contrary, the ld. CIT–DR submitted that he may be allowed to verify such tax effect mentioned in Form 36 is different. 4. We have considered the rival submission and find that the ld. AO himself has calculated the tax payable by the assessee. Considering the fact that tax effect in the present appeal is less than `. 60,00,000/–, therefore the appeal of revenue is dismissed as not maintainable however, the revenue is given liberty to file Printed from counselvise.com Shri Ashish Natha Chakkarwar ITA No. 433/Nag/2025 3 appropriate application for recall of the order if at later stage, if it is discovered that tax effect is more than the threshold limit of `. 60,00,000/– or the case is covered by any exceptional clause of Circulars of CBDT. 5. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order announced in open court on 27th February 2026 at the time of hearing. Sd/– Sd/– KHETTRA MOHAN ROY PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur: Dated: 27/02/2026 SK, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Nagpur Printed from counselvise.com "