SHIRALI JINDUTT SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 681/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 August 2026AY 2020-20215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case and that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence for the additions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened under Section 148 alleging unaccounted cash transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE without providing substantial evidence or allowing proper opportunity. The assessee contended that transactions were recorded and no cash was involved.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment and subsequent additions were made without providing sufficient evidence and adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.R, Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.DR
For Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.DR
Hearing: 14/05/2026Pronounced: 12/08/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 05.01.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ITA No.681/Ahd/2026 [Shirali Jindutt Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 2 –

referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21.

2.

The statement of facts and grounds as furnished by the assessee are reproduced as under:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

“The appellant is a Resident Individual The appellant has filed its original Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 10/11/2020 declaring total income of Rs. 20,08,120/-. The Appellant case was reopened u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act alleging the appellant that unaccounted cash transaction of Rs. 2,32,41,000/- with M/s Anas Enterprise for which appellant has filed detailed Reply. The Ld. A.O. has passed order without considering the facts and objection filed by the Appellant that he has not purchased any goods from Anas Enterprise and the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued. Further Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued and reply were filed. It was the alleged in the said notice that evidence was found during search at the factory premises of M/s Anas Enterprise is relevant to business. It was also alleged that the appellant has unaccounted cash transaction with M/s Anas Enterprise without providing any substantial evidence. During assessment proceedings, the Appellant has requested the evidences on which re-opening was made but the same were not provided.

The Learned A.O. issued show cause notice on 14/02/2025 but without providing any substantial evidence for alleged transactions, the reply could not file and Video Conferencing (VC) was not granted.

During assessment proceedings, the appellant furnished copy of ledger account with bank statement, GST return, Sale invoice stating that the entire transactions with M/s. Anas Enterprise is shown in the books of account and no cash transactions whatsoever have been made.

The Ld A.O. passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B on 04/03/2025 making addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 2,34,41,000/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act.

ITA No.681/Ahd/2026 [Shirali Jindutt Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 3 –

Hon'ble CIT_Appeal, NFAC, Delhi has send notices through to the National Faceless Appeal Centre but could not attend as documents for submission is not readily available, could not filed in time before CIT_Appeal. I have no knowledge about the income tax proceedings, it was replied too late about the transaction. The notices of CIT-Appeal was not complied as it was not informed to AR for submission because the notices were addressed as it was received in mail & not served physically. Meanwhile, hon'ble CIT -Appeal has passed the order.

Your appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CIT-Appeal (NFAC) presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1.

The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) is bad and erroneous in law and/or on facts where reopening the case of the appellant u/s 147 of the act without substantial evidences in his possession that the appellant has unaccounted cash transaction with M/s. Anas Enterprise. 2. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) erred in law and in the facts of the case in making addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 2,32,41,000/- in respect of cash transaction with M/s. Anas Enterprise u/s. 69 of the IT act. 3. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in misinterpreting the various facts and documentary evidences and disregarding the various submission made and documentary evidences produced during the course of the assessment Proceedings. 4. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,32,41,000/- as income of the appellant u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case it is totally illegal, incorrect, unjustified and the same be deleted. 5. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) has violated of principles of natural justice as the order was passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. 6. The learned NFAC erred in applying the provisions of section 115BBE to the transaction. It is submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case it is totally illegal, incorrect, unjustified and the same be deleted.

ITA No.681/Ahd/2026 [Shirali Jindutt Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 4 –

7.

The Order passed by the learned NFAC is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now. 8. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of appeal.”

3.

A perusal of the aforesaid stament of facts read with grounds of appeal would reveal that the assessee has contended that the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) had not provided substantial evidence relied upon by him for making the impugned additions including the reasons of reopening of the assessment despite so requested by the assessee. That, though, the assessee duly furnished certain details like copy of ledger account with bank statement, GST Return, Sale invoice stating that the entire transactions with M/s. Anas Enterprise is shown in the books of account and no cash transactions whatsoever have been made. However, the Ld. AO ignored the same. Further, the assessee could not represent its case before the CIT(A) and furnish the requisite details due to lack of knowledge about the online appellate proceedings.

4.

Considering the above submissions, in our view, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present her case before the AO. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction that the AO will provide to the assessee the reasons of reopening of the assessment and the copies of the other materials, relying upon which, the AO has made the impugned additions. The AO will give proper opportunity to the assessee to furnish the reply

ITA No.681/Ahd/2026 [Shirali Jindutt Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 5 –

and explanations, thereafter, will pass the assessment order afresh in accordance with law. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

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

This Order pronounced on 12/08/2026 under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 12/08/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. 5. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →