YAMINI SANJAYBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(9), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 475/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 July 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the appellate order to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal along with the pending appeal of the assessee's husband, where substantial additions were made. The assessee was given liberty to raise all grounds before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened due to high-value transactions in a joint bank account with her husband. Additions were made on account of sale of agricultural land and bank transactions, treated as protective in the assessee's hands and substantial in her husband's.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment was validly initiated and whether the additions made were justified, especially considering the joint nature of the bank account and the pending appeal of the husband.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 2(14),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 475/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Yamini Sanjaybhai Desai Income Tax Officer A/401, Silver Crist, Ward-1(3)(9), Appartment, Vs Surat L.P. Savani Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Gujarat PAN: AHSPD0084G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Revenue Represented: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-05-2026 Date of pronouncement : 10-07-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

I.T. A No. 475//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Yamini Sanjaybhai Desai vs. ITO

2.

Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an individual and Partner in a partnership firm with her husband. For the A.Y 2012-13, the assessee filed her return of income on 02.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2,07,930/-. The assessee held joint bank account with her husband, Sh. Sanjay Balvantrai Desai in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Surat in which total credit entries of Rs.6,37,93,790/- and debit entries of Rs. 6,39,43,510/- were made. The assessee was a partner in the firm M/s. Shree Sai Developers along with her husband. The firm also had current account with Kotak Mahindra Bank were credit and debit entries were made. The assessee failed to offer satisfactory reply to the credit and debit entries and in respect of nature and sources of the above high value bank transactions. Therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued on 13.03.2019 both to the assessee and her husband. The assessee failed to make proper reply to the notices, which has resulted in passing reassessment order making addition on account of sale of agricultural land of Rs. 35,24,770/- and the amount of Rs. 7,17,96,882/- being bank transactions with Kotak Mahindra Bank. The above two additions are made as protective addition in the hands of the assessee/wife and substantial addition in the hands of the husband.

3.

Aggrieved against the re-assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed and also confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us, raising the following grounds of appeal as under:-

I.T. A No. 475//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 3 Yamini Sanjaybhai Desai vs. ITO

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of the above said credit bank entries as unexplained bank transaction in assesses total income as well as in her husband total income, because account was in the joint name of assessee and her husband Sanjaybhai B. Desai. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 7,17,96,882/ on account of alleged deposits in Kotak Mahindra Bank treated as unexplained bank transaction and added to the total income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 35,24,770/ on account of disallowance of claimed u/s.2(14) of the Income Tax Act in regard to sold agriculture land during the year. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not Offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CITIA) or AO. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.

5.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee’s husband case was also passed by the same Assessing Officer vide order dated 12.12.2019, and the very same additions on substantial basis and protective addition in the hands of the

I.T. A No. 475//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 4 Yamini Sanjaybhai Desai vs. ITO

assessee/wife on 13.12.2019. In fact, the appeal filed by the husband, Sh. Sanjay Balvantrai Desai is still pending before ld. CIT(A), NFAC with acknowledgment No. 292201410160120 and therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is set aside back to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal along with the appeal filed by Sh. Sanjay Balvantrai Desai. Ld. Counsel further pleaded that liberty may be given to the assessee to argue the jurisdictional ground and other grounds before ld. CIT(A), NFAC.

6.

Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue though filed written submission but fairly agreed to set aside the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A), NFAC to decide this protective addition along with substantial addition made in the hands of the husband, Sh. Sanjay Balvantrai Desai.

7.

We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. Considering the fact that the substantial additions are made in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Balvantrai Desai, husband of the assessee pending before ld. CIT(A), it is more appropriate to set aside the present appellate order to the file of ld. CIT(A), NFAC to decide afresh along with pending appeal of Sh. Sanjay Balvantrai Desai wherein substantial additions is made. It is open to the assessee to raise all grounds and additional grounds before ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Needless to say. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC should give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the appeal.

I.T. A No. 475//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 5 Yamini Sanjaybhai Desai vs. ITO

8.

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

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 10 -07-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat: Dated 10/07/2026 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →