TEJAS GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in dismissing the appeal for delay in filing the appeal, instead of holding that the appeal is filed within the time from which the demand notice was received by appellant, and without prejudice, the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal within time.

- 2– (2) That on facts, and in law, the entire assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and bad in law, as the correct procedure for assessment should have been u/s 153C of the Act.

(3) That on facts and in law the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, which is based on reasons recorded, which are incorrect and contrary to the facts on record, and therefore the entire re-opening of assessment is invalid and void-ab-initio.

(4) That on facts, and in law, the entire assessment order is invalid and void ab-initio, as the juri ictional notices are issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as required under the Income Tax Act.

(5) That on facts and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,67,47,000/- made of alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on absolutely incorrect facts and by relying on Digital Data recovered from search at third party which is not admissible, nor confronted to appellant.”

- 4–

We find that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer proceed on the factual premise that the assessee had purchased immovable property for Rs.8,47,67,000/- during the year under consideration. The assessee has disputed the very existence of such purchase and has placed bank statements and other material before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, as pointed out by the Ld. AR, reassessment proceedings in the cases of the other persons named in the same seized material, namely Jigar G. Patel and Pritesh G. Patel, did not result in any addition on the basis of the very same material. We have gone through the paper-book and find out that the case of Jigar Patel has been reopened u/s 147 of the Act and assessment has been completed accepting the returned income, without any addition on account of purchase of property. Similarly, in the case of Pritesh G. Patel, the case was reopened for the AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 and assessment orders have been passed without making any addition on account of the purchase of the property. The assessments of all the three persons namely Jigar G. Patel, Pritesh G. Patel and the assessee have been reopened for the same reason. Since the issue stands examined in the case of Jigar G. Patel and Pritesh G. Patel, and in the absence of any change in the factual matrix of the case, returns being accepted in the proceedings u/s 147, no contrary decision can be taken by the Revenue in the case of the assessee.

The order pronounced in the open Court on 13.08.2026 (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 13.08.2026 **btk - 5–

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant