CHANDRAKANT NARSIDAS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Chandrakant Narsidas Patel,
142-E, Lalbawa Temple, Opp.
Kabutar
Khana,
Bhuleshwar,
Mumbai–400002, Maharashtra v/s.
बनाम
Income Tax Officer, Ward
– 4(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan,
Mumbai
–
400
020,
Maharashtra
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABPP9011D
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रतिवादी
Appellant by :
Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, ARs
Respondent by :
Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT
Date of Hearing
09.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement
15.09.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]
pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 26.03.2022 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. In various grounds of appeal, the assessee has agitated the action of the ld.CIT(A) in upholding the action of the AO in reopening
P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2017-18
Chandrakant Narsidas Patel, Mumbai the assessment u/s 147 of the Act as also addition made u/s 69A of the Act amounting to Rs.84 crores as also invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee return of income declaring total income of Rs. 8,67,300/-. Subsequently, his case was reopened u/s 147 and a notice u/s 148 was issued. The AO issued various notices from time to time which were not complied. He also asked the assessee to explain the source of investment in gold of 258 kg amounting to Rs. 84 Crores. He further asked to provide the name, current address,
PAN & e-mail ID along with documentary evidence to corroborate the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions with M/s
Pihu Gold & M/s Satnam Jewels. The AO also their confirmations which remained non complied. Ultimately, the AO passed the impugned assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act making addition of Rs.
84,08,67,300/- u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the A.O. invoked the provisions of Section 115BBE in respect of above addition made in the assessment order.
4. During the appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee vehemently argued against the addition made by the AO by furnishing ground wise written submissions with reference to the detail
P a g e | 3
A.Y. 2017-18
Chandrakant Narsidas Patel, Mumbai and documents furnished by it during the appellate proceedings which were sent to the AO for submission of remand report.With regard to M/s
Pihu Gold and M/s Satnam Jewels, it was submitted that juri iction of these cases does not lie with this office therefore undersigned is unable to offer comment on the same. However, on account of incomplete compliance during remand proceedings, the AO showed his inability to furnish report on the details set to him for comments.
4.1 It was noticed by the ld.CIT(A) that even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant had furnished only bank statement in the name of additional evidence, no other documents and details had been filed by him in support of the grounds of appeal raised by him. Notices u/s 250 had been issued multiple times but the appellant did not furnish anything else. Accordingly, he adjudicated the grounds relating to reopening and merits on the basis of certain details furnished and forwarded to the AO.
4.2 As far as the reopening is concerned, he observed that it was based on information received by the AO from the Investigation wing of the department. As per the information summary available on Insight
Portal, the information relating to Assessment Year 2017-18 pertained to the appellant arrested by Enforcement Directorate in a money
P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2017-18
Chandrakant Narsidas Patel, Mumbai laundering case for accepting Rs. 84 crores demonetized currency between November and December, 2016 via two shell companies, Pihu
Gold and Satnam Jewels. Therefore, he ruled that there was no infirmity in the reopening relying further on certain judicial decision. On merits also, in the absence of complete details and lack of proper compliance, the addition was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
5. Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the contentions as made in the grounds of appeal. He has not give many reason for non compliance during various proceedings before the authorities. It is further contended strongly that the AO did not apply his mind and mechanically reopened the case of the basis of information passed on to him and he had not sufficient material facts to constitute ‘reason to believe’. The case of the assessee could not be reopened on the only basis that the ED arrested him for alleged money laundering through two entities i.e. Pihu
Gold and Satnam Jewels. However, we find that the assessee was completely silent with respect to the money laundering case filed by the ED and its status report. Hence, the additions made by AO was confirmed and appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
5.1 During hearing, the ld.AR pleaded to remand the case back to the AO for de novo assessment with the assurance that the assessee
P a g e | 5
A.Y. 2017-18
Chandrakant Narsidas Patel, Mumbai would duly comply with the notices in this regard. The ld.DR however, objected to the request citing repeated non compliance.
7. We notice that huge additions made by the AO on account of lack of compliance could not be adjudicated properly by the ld.CIT(A) also. Taking into consideration all relevant facts of the case and following the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the scales of justice demand that the matter should be verified and revisited at the level of AO. Both the sides agreed to this proposition of sending back the entire issue to the file of AO for de novo assessment by him while affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the AO and the assessee is directed to ensure proper compliance failing which the AO would be at liberty to draw adverse view of the matter.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2025. SANDEEP GOSAIN
PRABHASH SHANKAR
(न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(लेखाका रसदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
P a g e | 6
A.Y. 2017-18
Chandrakant Narsidas Patel, Mumbai
Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
ददनाुंक /Date 15.09.2025
Lubhna Shaikh / Steno
आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यावपि प्रवि ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.