UMESH SATYANARAYAN SHAH,NEW VANJAR UJALA SERCALE SARKHEJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (3)(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1390/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 August 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (bank statement) and set aside the assessment order. The AO was directed to re-examine the cash deposits in light of the new evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2013-14 despite significant cash deposits. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 18,31,050/- under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of cash deposits as unexplained income was justified without considering the assessee's explanation and bank statements. Whether additional evidence should be admitted for a just adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri R. Govindarajan

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.R
For Respondent: Ms. Madhulika Satpute, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

PER R. GOVINDARAJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the appellate order dated 19-02-2026 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC (in short, referred to as the CIT(A)) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as “the Act”) relating to Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file any return of income for assessment year 2013-14 though there was cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 18,31,050/- in his bank account. In response to notice u/s.

I.T.A No. 1390/Ahd/2026 Umesh Satyanarayan Shah, A.Y. 2013-14 148 of the Act, assessee did not furnish any return. As there was no response to the notices, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s. 144 /147r.w.s. 144B of the Act assessing the total income at Rs. 18,31, 050/- u/s 68 of the Act.

3.

Even during the course of appellate proceedings as there was non- compliance on the part of the assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal holding that (i) assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and (ii) the action of the Assessing Officer was not arbitrary or unreasonable.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:- “1. Admission of additional evidence (Rule 29): That the additional evidence by the Appellant may kindly be taken on record and admitted under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the said additional evidence is in support of the Cash deposit made by the appellant which could not be furnished earlier due to bona fide reasons. Their admission will assist in a just adjudication and will not prejudice the Revenue, which may be afforded liberty to rebut, if so desired.

2.

The Ld. AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 18,31,050/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits treated as unexplained cash credits, wherein the said cash deposits were made from cash earlier withdrawn from the bank account of the assessee, which is clearly evident from the bank statement. Thus, the impugned addition is unjustified and liable to be deleted or matter may kindly be set aside to the AO for verification of the documents.”

5.

The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the bank account statement could not be furnished before the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings and consequently, the Assessing Officer considered the credit entries in the bank account without

I.T.A No. 1390/Ahd/2026 Umesh Satyanarayan Shah, A.Y. 2013-14 examining the corresponding debit entries and true nature of transaction as a whole. He further submitted that the bank statement of account for the period 02-04-2012 to 31-03-2013 may be admitted as additional evidence as the same is necessary for deciding the present appeal.

6.

The ld. D.R. submitted that since the additional evidence was not made available to the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, it is necessary that the A.O. may be given an opportunity to examine the contents of the same.

7.

We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue for adjudication is whether the A.O. was justified in treating cash deposits amounting to Rs. 18,31,050/- as unexplained income. As the additional evidence now produced before the Tribunal is necessary for deciding the subject matter of impugned addition, the same is admitted.

7.1 We, therefore, set aside the assessment order and direct the AO to examine the sources of all cash deposits in the light of the assessee’s claim and pass assessment order in accordance with provisions of the Act. The assessee is directed to co-operate during assessment proceedings without fail.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14-08-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (R. GOVINDARAJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 14/08/2026

I.T.A No. 1390/Ahd/2026 Umesh Satyanarayan Shah, A.Y. 2013-14 a.k.

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →