SAHYOG CONSTRUCTION,VADODARA V. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-1(3), VADODARA

MA 81/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Sahyog Construction, which filed a Miscellaneous Application against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 104/Ahd/2025. The application sought rectification of the ITAT's order dated 03.07.2025, claiming that certain grounds challenging the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act were not addressed. The assessee contended that the addition was not in accordance with the law and challenged the tax rate applied under section 115BBE. The Departmental Representative conceded to the need for a re-examination of the unaddressed grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828520 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ahmedabad
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESHWAR P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT SUTHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 81/Ahd/2025 (in I.T.A. No. 104/Ahd/2025) (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/s. Sahyog Construction A-9, State bank of Saurashtra Housing Society, Nizampura, Vadodara - 390002 बनाम/ Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara (Previously Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Vadodara) Öथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACKFS9276Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 09/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 13/01/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: Vide the present Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, rectification in the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.104/Ahd/2025, dated 03.07.2025 is sought for the reason that certain grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated in the said order. The assessee therefore seeks recall of the said order of the ITAT for adjudicating the said grounds. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.81/Ahd/2025 [Sahyog Construction vs. ACIT] - 2 – 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee in its appeal had challenged the addition made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and had raised four grounds challenging the addition made as being not in accordance with law and also on merits of the issue. He contended that while Ground No.1 was the legal ground raised by the assessee contending that the addition u/s.68 of the Act could not be made once the books of accounts of the assesse were rejected u/s.145(3) of the Act, Ground Nos. 2 & 3 challenged the addition made on merits, while Ground No.4, he contended was the challenge to the tax rate applied on the addition made u/s.115BBE of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ITAT in its order passed had adjudicated only Ground No.1 raised by the assessee while the remaining Grounds i.e. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 remained to be adjudicated. He drew our attention to the grounds raised by the assessee as under: “2. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 1 above, The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 6,58,43,000/-, being unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, without considering the submission of the appellant. The impugned addition of Rs.6,58,43,000/-being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. 3. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 2 above, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have directed the Ld. A.O. to consider the fact that the appellant has repaid the amounts during the year and thus, the addition made should be directed to be deleted once the payment made is accepted by the Ld. AO. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in taxing the addition made u/s. 68 of Rs. 6,58,43,000/-u/s. 115BBE of the Act particularly when the amounts cannot be held as unexplained.” Printed from counselvise.com MA No.81/Ahd/2025 [Sahyog Construction vs. ACIT] - 3 – He, therefore, pleaded that the appeal be restored back for adjudicating Ground Nos. 2 to 4 raised by the assessee. 3. Ld. DR fairly admitted to the same. 4. We have considered the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and have also gone through the order of the ITAT. We find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the order passed by the ITAT in the assesses appeal Ground Nos. 2 to 4 remained to be adjudicated. Accordingly, we recall the appeal for hearing Ground Nos. 2 to 4 raised by the assessee and direct the Registry to fix the hearing in the appeal on 28.01.2026. Order was pronounced in the open court. 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced on 13/01/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 13/01/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ Ĥितिलǒप अĒेǒषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ǒवभागीय Ĥितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "