SAMIRBHAI DILIPBHAI UPADHYAY L/H OF LATE DILIPBHAI JAMIYATRAM UPADHYAY,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, VAPI

ITA 1063/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 July 2026AY 2011-127 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to being a non-filer with cash deposits. During assessment, discrepancies were found in pension and interest income, and large cash deposits were made into bank accounts. The Assessing Officer made additions based on these discrepancies and unexplained deposits.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The additions of Rs. 41,000/- and Rs. 5,66,490/- were deleted as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support the claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits and loans were justified, considering the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 10(1),Section 2(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 14/05/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011- 12, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), dated 23.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on 28.11.2018. Samir Dilipb

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →