AMJADALI GAZANFARALI BUKHARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD -3(2)(6)), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 504/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 September 2026AY 2010-1110 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 14.50 crores for AY 2009-10 as it was not an advance but income. However, a separate addition of Rs. 1 crore for the same year was deleted as it led to double addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against additions made by the Assessing Officer for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings, despite opportunities provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the amount received was an advance or income, and whether a separate addition for cash receipt constituted double addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 131,Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI TAPAS RAM MISRA

For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 12.08.2026Pronounced: 01.09.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals are filed by the Assessee against separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] both dated 19.01.2024 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”]. As the grounds taken by the assessee in these two appeals are identical, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience.

ITA Nos. 503 & 504/Ahd/2024 Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari Vs ITO, AY-2009-10 & 2010-11 2

2.

No one was present on behalf of the assessee in the course of hearing. It is found that the assessee has been allowed a number of opportunities, but no effective representation was made by the assessee on any occasion. The details of opportunities provided to the assessee is summarised in the table below:

Sr. Date of Compliance No. hearing 1. 08.07.2024 The assessee requested for adjournment. Matter was adjourned to 30.07.2024. 2. 30.07.2024 No one was present for the assessee. A fresh notice was issued by RPAD/e-mail and the matter was fixed for hearing on 10.09.2024. 3. 10.09.2024 Shri M M Sheikh, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared and the matter was part heard. Case was adjourned to 20.09.2024 for further hearing. 4. 20.09.2024 The Ld. AR of the assessee requested for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 18.10.2024. 5. 18.10.2024 No one was present for the assessee. The matter was released from part heard. The case was next fixed for hearing on 28.11.2024. 6. 28.11.2024 No one appeared. A fresh notice was issued and the matter was fixed for hearing on 28.01.2025. 7. 28.01.2025 The matter was adjourned to 20.02.2025 at the written request of the assessee’s AR. 8. 20.02.2025 The matter was one again adjourned to 04.03.2025 at the written request of the assessee’s AR. 9. 04.03.2025 The matter was adjourned to 28.04.2025 at the request of assesse’s AR. 10. 28.04.2025 None appeared for assessee. Matter was adjourned to 29.04.2025. 11. 29.04.2025 The Ld. AR of the assessee attended and was required to file additional evidences. Matter was adjourned to 03.06.2025. 12. 03.06.2025 None appeared. A fresh notice was issued. The matter was fixed for hearing on 10.10.2025. 13. 10.12.2025 The matter was adjourned to 12.08.2026 14. 12.08.2026 None appeared for the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR was heard.

ITA Nos. 503 & 504/Ahd/2024 Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari Vs ITO, AY-2009-10 & 2010-11 3

It is thus evident that assessee has not made any compliance apart from seeking adjournments. In fact, the assessee also did not make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). It is thus evident that assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal.

3.

We have heard Shri Kiran Unavekar, the Ld. CIT-DR and proceed to adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merit.

ITA No. 503/Ahd/2024: A.Y. 2009-10

4.

The grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal are as under:

1.

That the learned A. O. & C.I.T. erred in law and on fact in making addition of Rs. 14,50,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the appellant group has challenged the ownership dispute of their ancestral land and litigation was pending before various courts, before revenue Authority & before Charity Commissioner Office. The appellant group has no income to incur huge expenditure involved in litigation before Hon'ble High Court, Supreme Court & other forum, hence M.O.U has been executed with Mr. Prakash Kumar Parmar & Sujan Developers pvt. Ltd. wherein sharing of Ownership right was given on certain terms & conditions. The learned. A. O. & C.I.T. has not appreciated the basic facts that the amount is just an advance and made the unwarranted addition which is not legal and is required to be deleted to meet the end of justice. 2. That the learned A. O. & C.I.T. Cerred in law and on f act in making addition of Rs. 82,50,000/- as un explained credit without appreciating the fact that the appellant has duly explained the source of each and every transaction and submitted the copy of cash book as well as explanation and confirmations. The addition is unwarranted an d needs to be deleted to meet ends of justice. 3. That the learned A. O. & C.I.T. erred in law and on fact in making addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- without. appreciating the, fact that the appellant has entered into an agreement with M/S Sujan developers Pvt. Ltd. & Mr. Prakash Kumar Parmar wherein the above amount has been clearly reflected and has been properly accounted for in the books of account of the appellant, hence the addition is unwarranted and is required to be deleted to meet the end of justice.

ITA Nos. 503 & 504/Ahd/2024 Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari Vs ITO, AY-2009-10 & 2010-11 4 5. The first ground pertains to addition of Rs. 14.50 crores in respect of amount received towards land consideration. Shri Kiran Unavekar, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) had received an information that the assessee had signed an MoU with M/s. Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and had received the payment of Rs. 14.50 crores in respect of Vasna village land. On the basis of this information, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31.03.2016. In the course of assessment, the assessee had explained that the sum of Rs. 14.50 crores represented advance towards land deal. It was submitted that the land was ancestral and the title of the land was not clear. Further, that the matter regarding title of the land was pending in the courts and, therefore, the advance received by assessee might have to returned back in future. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee had signed MoU with M/s Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. as power of attorney holder on behalf of other 25 successor of the land. However, the copy of agreement between the assessee and the other 25 persons was not brought on record. It further transpired that the assessee had not distributed the amount of Rs. 14.50 crores received from Sujan Developers to other 25 successors. Rather, the assessee himself had utilized the entire amount and made advances for earning of interest. Further, the MoU categorically stipulated that this amount of Rs. 14.50 crores will not be returned back to Sujan Developers even if the title is decided against the assessee. In view of these facts, the Ld. CIT-DR justified the addition of Rs. 14.50 crores in the hands of the assessee as the same was income received by him.

ITA Nos. 503 & 504/Ahd/2024 Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari Vs ITO, AY-2009-10 & 2010-11 5 6. We have gone through the materials available on record. The fact that the assessee has received sum of Rs. 14.50 crores from M/s Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. is not under dispute. According to the assessee, this amount was received by him on behalf of other 25 successors. However, no evidence was brought on record that there were other 25 successors and no copy of agreement made by the assessee with them was brought on record. Further, the sum of Rs. 14.50 crores received by the assessee from M/s Sujan Developers Pvt Ltd was also not distributed to other 25 successors but was utilized exclusively by the assessee. The terms & conditions of the MoU with M/s Sujan Developers Pvt Ltd categorically provided that the sum of Rs. 14.50 crores received by the assessee was not to be returned back even if the judgment of the title deed was not in favour of the assessee. It was, thus, evident that the sum received was not in the nature of advance. The assessee has not brought on record any evidence to negate the assertion of the Revenue that the amount received by him from M/s Sujan Developers Pvt Ltd., was his income. In the absence of any material to controvert the findings of the AO, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities on this issue. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 14.50 crores as made by the AO is confirmed and the ground taken by the assessee is dismissed.

7.

The next ground pertains to addition of Rs. 82.50 lakhs. The reason given by the AO for making this addition is found to be as under:

“5.4. The reply of the assessee perused but not acceptable on the following grounds: (i) On verification of the bank account with Bank of Baroda, it is seen that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- credited on 30/05/2008 and Rs.3,00,000/- credited on 31/05/2008 which is deposited before the payment received from Sujan Developers. Remaining amount of Rs.1,45,20,000/-(1,49,70,000/- less 4,50,000/-) credited after bearer cheque received from Sujan. The contents of

ITA Nos. 503 & 504/Ahd/2024 Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari Vs ITO, AY-2009-10 & 2010-11 6

the assessee as replied is accepted. The amount deposited before receipt of money from Sujan Developers is trealed as your unexplained credit of Rs.4,50,000/- and added to your total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is hereby initiated. (Addition: Rs.4,50,000/-) (ii) On verification of the Bank account with Bank of Baroda, it is seen that as per assessee's reply demand draft purchased on 08/10/2008 of Rs.38,12,812/- but neither the details to whom the payment of demand draft given is filed nor the credit amount match with the same figure (i.e. 38,12 812/-) as credit entry shows of Rs.9,50,000/- each (4 times- 950000x4=38,00,000). The source of amount credited of Rs.38,00,000/- is not proved with any cogent proof. The addition of Rs.38,00,000/- is made to your total income as your unexplained credit. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1 (c) for concealment of income is hereby Initiated. (Addition: Rs.38,00,000/-) (iii) On verification of Credit entry of Rs.25,00,000/- as per Bank account with Bank of Baroda, It is seen that as per the contra confirmation Jakiruddin has pald Rs. 10,00,000/- and Muniruddin has paid Rs. 15,00,000/- is found to be correct and plea of the assessee accepted. (iv) On verification of Bank account with Bank of Baroda, it is seen that Rs.79,00,000/- has been credited between 03/02/2009 to 24/02/2009. As per reply of the assessee, the amount is received from Muniruddin and Zakiruddin which given to them as advance. On verification of the contra confirmation of Jakiruddin S Kureshi, It is seen that amount of Rs.22,50,000/- given to the assessee between 06/02/2009 to 24/02/2009 and from the contra confirmation of Munirudding S. Kureshi, It Is seen that amount of Rs.16,50,000/- given to assessee between 09/02/2009 to 24/02/2009 totalling to Rs.39,00,000/- whereas credit entry as per bank account reflects at Rs.79,00,000/-. Therefore the difference amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (79,00,000/- less 39,00,000) treated as unexplained credit of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is hereby Initiated. (Addition: Rs.40,00,000/-) (Addition of para 5 = 4,50,000/- +38,00,000/- +40,00,000/- =82,50,000/-)”

The assessee has been unable to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer. No material was brought on record either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before us to substantiate as to how the addition made by the AO was not correct. In the absence of any explanation on behalf of the assessee, the

ITA Nos. 503 & 504/Ahd/2024 Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari Vs ITO, AY-2009-10 & 2010-11 7

addition made by the AO is upheld and the ground taken by the assessee is dismissed.

8.

The next ground pertains to addition of Rs. 1 crore in respect of cash deposit in the bank account. The AO had made this addition for the following reason:

6.

As per the inquiry report of ITO, (Inv.) Unit-1, Ahmedabad, it is reported that during the statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act on 18/01/2016, the assessee had ว stated that cash worth of Rs.1,00,00,000/- received from M/s. Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd after signing the M.O.U. Therefore, the assessee was show caused, vide show cause, Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 09/12/2016 which was duly served upon him. The contents of the show cause under reference is reproduced as under: ‘During the statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act on 18/01/2016, you have stated in Q.No. 12 that Rs.1,00,00,000/- received by cash from M/s. Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. after signing the MOU during the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to Α.Υ. 2009-10. No details of its utilization was provided. You are hereby show caused as to why the Rs.1,00,00,000/- received by cash should not to be treated as your unexplained money and added to your total income." 6.1. In response to the above the assessee has filed his reply which is as under: "During the F.Y. 2008-09 Rs.1,00,00,000/- were received from M/s.Sujan Developers via bearer cheque. The said amount is shown as advance to Zakirrudin by Mis. Sujan in their books of accounts. Confirmation from Mr. Zakirrudin for advances taken from us clearly show this. Further there Is also an agreement with Mr. Zakirrudin and Mr.Prakash Parmar regarding advances made to them by us. We are enclosing herewith an Annexure-2.Hence the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- advanced by M/s.Sujan Is not an unexplained money liable to be added to my income." 6.2. The reply of the assessee perused but not acceptable on the following grounds: (i) The plea of the assessee is not acceptable as discussed in detall in para No. 4 as above. The title is not clear and the amount is received after MOU through Zakir as per your reply which is not reflected in your bank account and not routed through banking channel. The cash amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- received from Sujan Developers through Jakiruddin S. Kureshi is treated as your unexplained income and added to your total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of Income is hereby initiated. (Addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/-)

ITA Nos. 503 & 504/Ahd/2024 Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari Vs ITO, AY-2009-10 & 2010-11 8 9. The assessee had explained before the AO that the cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in the bank account represented the amount received from M/s. Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. as per MoU. The AO had also admitted the fact that the assessee had received cash of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from M/s. Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. The entire amount of Rs. 14.50 crores received from M/s. Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. was added to the income of the assessee separately. Under the circumstances, there was no justification for the AO to make this addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in respect of cash receipt from M/s. Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is not the case of the AO that the cash of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was received over and above the amount of Rs. 14.50 crores received as per MoU. The separate addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the cash received from M/s. Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. has led to double addition. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in respect of cash of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- received from M/s Sujan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and deposited in the bank account of the assessee, is deleted. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

ITA No. 504/Ahd/2024: A.Y. 2010-11

11.

The grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal are as under:

1.

That the learned A. O. & C.I.T. erred in law and on fact in making addition of Rs. 6,50,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant group has challenged the ownership dispute of their ancestral land and litigation was pending before various courts, before revenue Authority & before Charity Commissioner Office. The appellant group has no income to incur huge expenditure involved in litigation before Hon'ble High Court, Supreme Court & other forum, hence M.O.U has been executed with Mr. Prakash Kumar Parmar & Sujan Developers pvt. Ltd. wherein sharing of Ownership right was given on certain terms & conditions. The learned A. O. & C.I.T. has not appreciated the

ITA Nos. 503 & 504/Ahd/2024 Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari Vs ITO, AY-2009-10 & 2010-11 9 basic facts that the appellant is not sole owner of the land and land is possessed by 25 co-owners and no sale deed was executed and the amount is just an advance and made the unwarranted addition which is not legal and is required to be deleted to meet the end of justice. The appellant reserve the right to add, alter, amend, change, modify and other grounds at the time of final hearing.

12.

The ground of the assessee is identical to Ground No. 1 of ITA No. 503/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, the decision on this issue as taken in ITA No. 503/Ahd/2024 is applicable mutatis mutandis to this appeal as well. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is confirmed and the ground of the assessee is dismissed.

13.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

14.

In the final result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 503/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2009-10 is partly allowed whereas the appeal in ITA No. 504/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 01/09/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (TAPAS RAM MISRA) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 01st September, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy) आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file.

ITA Nos. 503 & 504/Ahd/2024 Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari Vs ITO, AY-2009-10 & 2010-11 10

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →