NANDISH SHIRISH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1260/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 July 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that an identical addition made in the hands of the developer was deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the corresponding addition in the hands of the purchaser (assessee) was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition made by the lower authorities on account of alleged on-money paid to a developer. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made in the hands of the assessee is sustainable when an identical addition in the hands of the developer was deleted by the Tribunal. Validity of reopening of assessment and other procedural aspects were also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.R, Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30/06/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1260/Ahd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2020-21) बनाम Nandish Shirish Shah Income Tax Officer / 501, Blossom Residency, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380009 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : BDPPS8684B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 30/06/2026 07/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement (आदेश)/ORDER 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 29.01.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal:

“1. The order passed by AO and confirmed by NFAC is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed.

ITA No.1260/Ahd/2026[Nandish Shirish Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 2 –

2.

The reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO in passing assessment order without providing material relied on, statement of various persons and their cross examination and accordingly, assessment order is required to be quashed. 4. Ld. NFAC ought to have condone the delay of 2 days by observing principle of natural justice. 5. Ld. NFAC ought to have considered fact that provisions u/s 153C of the are applicable in case of appellant rather than provision of section 148 of the Act. 6. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition u/s 69 of the Act of Rs. 2439224/- ignoring submission of the appellant. 7. The addition made by AO and confirmed by NFAC are merely conjectures and surmises without any tangible evidence and accordingly, same is required to be quashed. 8. Charging of tax at rate prescribed u/s 115BBE is unjustified. 9. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified.”

3.

The assessee in this appeal has contested the addition made by the lower authorities of Rs.24,39,224/- made on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of office at Privilon and Paarijat Eclate project by SKZ Developers LLP.

4.

At the outset, Ld. AR for the assesse submitted that the impugned addition has been made in the hands of the assessee alleging that the assessee had paid on-money to the Developer, over and above, sale consideration mentioned in the conveyance

ITA No.1260/Ahd/2026[Nandish Shirish Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 3 –

deed. Ld. Counsel has produced on file a copy of the order of this Tribunal dated 09.01.2026 passed in ITA No.1677/Ahd/2024 & Ors. in the case of Developer, namely, SKZ Developers LLP. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that an identical addition, which was made in the hands of the Developer, holding that he had received on-money on sale of the units, has been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Under the circumstance, corresponding addition made in the hands of the purchaser is not sustainable and the same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

This Order pronounced on 07/07/2026

/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 07/07/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. 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 →