JALPA NILESH SHETH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 27(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence clearly contradicted the information used by the AO, as the figures in the excel sheet did not match the actual transaction details. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was carried away by the excel sheet without proper verification and made the addition on assumptions and surmises.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessee's case based on information that she made an investment in property partly paid in cash, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The AO relied on an excel sheet found during searches, which listed property owners. The assessee challenged this addition, arguing that the AO did not consider the actual transaction documents and failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO on the basis of an excel sheet without proper verification of documentary evidence is sustainable, and if the AO erred in not providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 153C,Section 143(1),Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sejal Jewellary v. Union of India20 citing171 Taxmann.com 846 · 2025 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assesse is preferred against the order dated 30/05/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)]” pertaining to AY 2017-18.
The grievance of the assessee read as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in reopening the case u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s. 69 of the income Tax Act, 1961 as alleged unexplained investment on the plea that the appellant has paid cash towards purchase of property, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) as well as the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing the opportunity of cross examination to M/s. Sumeet developers, without appreciating the fact and circumstances of the case.
2 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter OR DLEETE the said ground of appeal
.”
3. The assesse has also raised the following additional grounds:- “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the Assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the relevant provision of section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the recent judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Sejal Jewellary v. Union of India, 171 taxmann.com 846.”
4. Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidence brought on record, duly considered in the light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules, 1963.
5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 30/07/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 10,49,720/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act but no scrutiny assessment was thereafter done.
6. As per the information received from ACIT, Central Circle-2, Thane, the AO came to know that the assessee during the year under consideration has made investment in property part of which has been paid in cash. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed the return of income pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. As per the information, one excel-sheet was found from the searched persons which contained a list of the owners’ of godown no. GA3. The same is exhibited at page 3 of the assessment order. At page 4, a detailed chart is also exhibited, which is as under:-
7. The assessee is the owner of Gala 8 and Gala 9, mentioned at serial nos. 5 & 6 above. Basis this information, the AO assumed that the assessee has paid cash of Rs. 1 Crore over and above the transaction value and made the impugned addition which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
On perusal of the documents brought to our notice in the paper book, we find that the sale deed is for a consideration of Rs. 81.25 Lakhs on which stamp duty of Rs. 3.25 Lakhs has been paid. The ledger account in the books of the searched persons Sumeet Developers, read as under:-
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
