SAKET SUSHIL TIBREWAL,AHMEDABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

ITA 58/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Saket Sushil Tibrewal against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions were based on allegations that the assessee's proprietorship concern, Sneh Impex, was a beneficiary of accommodation entries. The Tribunal found that the additional evidences provided by the assessee were crucial and had not been considered by the CIT(A), leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834134 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: CHIRAG SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries
• Section: 147; 148; 132; 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 58 & 59/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Saket Sushil Tibrewal 2, Nandabaug Society, Opp B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad-380008 [PAN: ACNPT 2942 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5) Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Chirag Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(A)\" for short), both dated 16.10.2024, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], for Assessment Years (AY) 2018- 19 & 2019-20. 2. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical and arise from similar facts, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 58 & 59/Ahd/2025 Saket Sushil Tibrewal Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 - 2– 1. The assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s. 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for. 2. The assessing officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law ad on facts I making and confirming respectively the addition of Rs.38,33,711/- for AY 2018-19 and Rs. 71,60,000/- for AY 2019-20. The same deserves to be deleted.”. 4. For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 58/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 is taken as the lead case and the facts therefrom are narrated herein. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.5,33,160/-. Subsequently, information was flagged on the Insight Portal categorised as “High Risk CRIU/VRU case” for F.Y. 2017-18. 5.1 The information emanated from a search action conducted under section 132 of the Act on 12.04.2019 in the case of Shri Sanjay Govindram Agrawal, also known as Sanjay Tibrewal. Based on statements recorded during the search proceedings, the Investigation Wing concluded that the Shri Sanjay Govindram Agrawal was engaged in providing accommodation entries through several paper entities. As per the information, the assessee, through his proprietorship concern Sneh Impex, was alleged to be a beneficiary of accommodation entries aggregating to Rs.37,40,206/- during F.Y. 2017-18 from the following entities: SN Name of the party Total deposits (Rs.) Total with- drawals (Rs.) Total transaction Amount (Rs.) 1 AUSTVINAYAK TEXTILES 0447030100000090 3,00,000 3,00,000 6,00,000 2 GANPATI TEXTILE 7495002100000510 28,90,206 2,50,000 31,40,206 TOTAL 31,90,206 5,50,000 37,40,206 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 58 & 59/Ahd/2025 Saket Sushil Tibrewal Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 - 3– 5.2 Notice u/s 148A(b) dated 14.03.2022 was issued to the assessee. In the absence of any response, notice under section 148 was issued on 07.04.2022. During reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted partial details stating that the transactions represented short-term loans and advances routed through banking channels. However, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish complete bank statements, confirmations, PAN details, or evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. Relying primarily on the investigation findings and statements recorded during the search in the case of Sanjay Govindram Agralwal, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of Rs.37,40,206/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and made the addition accordingly. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the impugned addition by observing that:- a. The assessee failed to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the alleged lenders. b. Notices issued u/s 133(6) to Shri Sanjay Govindram Agrawal were replied to by denying any transaction with the assessee. c. Merely routing transactions through banking channels does not establish genuineness. d. The Sanjay Govindram Agrawal was admittedly engaged in providing accommodation entries. 7. Before us, the Ld. AR has furnished additional evidences, such as… a) Complete bank statements of the assessee b) Ledger accounts of Ganpati Textile, Radhika & Brothers, and Vinayak Textiles c) Supporting case laws Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 58 & 59/Ahd/2025 Saket Sushil Tibrewal Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 - 4– It was submitted that these evidences go to the root of the matter and are crucial for proper adjudication of the issues involved. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We observe that the additional evidences now placed before the Tribunal were neither filed before the Ld. CIT(A) nor it was examined by the Ld. CIT(A). These evidences are crucial for adjudicating the issues relating to the nature of transactions, net credit position, and applicability of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and following the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh examination at the level of the Ld. CIT(A) after duly considering and verifying the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law, after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. A.Y. 2019-20 9. Since the facts and issues involved in A.Y. 2019-20 are identical, the above directions shall apply mutatis mutandis to that year as well. 10. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 03.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 03.02.2026 *btk Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 58 & 59/Ahd/2025 Saket Sushil Tibrewal Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 - 5– आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation ….words has been processed by Hon’ble VP on his PC on……02.02.2026….. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ….02.02.2026 3. Other Member ……02.02.2026 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S …...02.02.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement …...03.02.26 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S …….03.02.26 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ……..03.02.26 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………… Printed from counselvise.com "