GOPAL CHANDAK,SURAT V. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

ITA 1040/SRT/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Gopal Chandak against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 18,20,675 to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The amount represented loans received from five individuals. The ITAT, referencing a Gujarat High Court decision, allowed the appeal concerning four of the loans, as they were repaid within the same financial year. However, the loan from Ms. Mamta Soni was not reversed due to the continuous possession of the funds by the assessee and the absence of repayment. The case also addressed the disallowance of 10% of indirect expenses, which was sent back for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831283 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 v. Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 811 of 2023)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1040/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Gopal Chandak, Shop No.6046, Ambaji Market Ring Road, Near India Market Surat-395002. [PAN : ACVPC2544A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2) Surat. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rasesh Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“the CIT(A) in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,20,675/- which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has received an amount of Rs.18,20,675/- from the five person as per table below: Sr. No. Name of the assessee Loan(Rs.) 1 Geetadevi T Paliwal 1,00,000 2 Pawan Rathi 1,50,000/- 3 Durgadevi B Paliwal 5,00,000/- 4 Mamta Soni 3,00,000/- 5 Lalit Rathi 7,70,675/- Total 18,20,675 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1040/Srt/2024 Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– 3. It was submitted that all the loans have been repaid except the loan of Rs.3,00,000 received from Ms. Mamta Soni. The issue of repayment and addition thereof stands adjudicated in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 v. Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 811 of 2023), the Gujarat High Court delivered a judgment on June 11, 2024. Dismissing the Revenue’s appeal the Hon’ble Court held that additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained if loans or advances are repaid within the same financial year. 4. Hence, the appeal of the assessee with regard to remaining four parties is allowed. 5. With regard to the loan given by the party, namely Ms. Mamta Soni, we find that the funds were originally lent by her on 30.03.2011 to Ratanpriya Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. wherein the assessee is the Director and upon receipt of the said monies on 26.08.2011, the same were advanced to the assessee on 27.08.2011. Thus, the amounts given as loan by the Ms. Mamta Soni, has always been with the assessee for the last 15 years and no repayment has been made which doesn’t add to any reasonable credential of the loan transaction. Hence, we affirmed the order of the AO on this account. 6. The Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of the indirect expenses. The Ld. AR submitted that, provided an opportunity, all relevant details and supporting evidences would be placed before the Revenue authorities. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for examination of the expenses and verification of the supporting documents. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1040/Srt/2024 Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 21.01.2026. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Surat; Dated 21.01.2026 **mv आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , /DR,ITAT, Surat, 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (TRUE COPY) सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Surat 1. on 17.10.2025……………. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …03.11.2025…………. 3. Other Member ……06.11.2025………. 4. Date on which the approved 5. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 6. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "