ITAT Ahmedabad Remands Addition of Rs. 1.70 Crore as Unexplained Investment for Fresh Verification:

Tribunal sends matter back to AO after assessee produces Auto-Sweep account for the first time, which may alter the core factual findings
Tribunal remands the addition of Rs. 1.70 crore as unexplained investment

ITAT Ahmedabad Remands Addition of Rs. 1.70 Crore as Unexplained Investment for Fresh Verification
The assessee, Bhavin Girishbhai Shah, filed his return for A.Y. 2022-23, declaring an income of Rs. 58.62 lakh. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer examined his bank records and noted that he had advanced short-term loans aggregating to Rs. 1.70 crore to three parties. The AO concluded that these advances were funded out of sweep-in credits received from Sumeru Buildcon and Lucky Steel, which he believed were not recorded in the assessee’s books. After rejecting the assessee’s explanation, the AO treated the amount of Rs. 1.70 crore as an unexplained investment under section 69.
Appeal to CIT(A): The CIT(A) upheld this addition, holding that detailed matching of the bank entries showed a nexus between sweep-in credits and the outgoing loans, and that the assessee could not rebut these findings.
Issue Before Tribunal: Whether the loans of Rs. 1.70 crore were sourced from unexplained funds, or whether the sweep-account entries, now produced, establish that they were recorded in the regular books and came from explained sources.
ITAT's Decision: The Tribunal observed that the AO’s entire addition rested on his presumption that sweep-in receipts from Sumeru Buildcon and Lucky Steel were not recorded in the assessee’s books. Since the new document may materially change the factual position, the ITAT held that the matter required limited verification.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to reconcile the Auto-Sweep account with the assessee’s ledger entries and bank statements. The AO was directed to confine himself strictly to this factual reconciliation, provide due opportunity to the assessee, and pass a speaking order. The appeal was therefore allowed.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157My Recent Articles
- ITAT Restricts Addition to Commission on Accommodation Cash Deposit TransactionsPremium
- ITAT Grants Relief on BSNL VRS Compensation and Leave Encashment ExemptionPremium
- ITAT Restores Charitable Trust's 12AB Registration Application After CIT(E) Rejects It for Non-Filing of DocumentsPremium
- Bombay High Court Quashes Time-Barred Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16Premium
- ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition Accepting Deceased Father’s Lifetime Cash SavingsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








