RAMESHBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.667/Ahd/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Rameshbhai Manubhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 710, Brahma Pole, Ward-3(3)(5), Kathwada, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382430.

[PAN :AOVPP6396 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Divya Rathod, AR Respondent by: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.07.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16.

ITA No. 667/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2– 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and or on facts in not considering reasons cited for delay in filing appeal properly and thereby not condoning delay in filing appeal 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and or on facts in confirming additions of Rs.6,55,445/- made by AO u/s.69A ignoring the fact that cash payment in lieu of cheque stated in purchase deed was made out of withdrawal from bank, balance in the bank was out of advances received from sale of land. 5. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold an immovable property and also purchased two immovable properties. In order to verify the transactions, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 calling upon the assessee to furnish copies of the purchase deeds, sale deed, bank statements highlighting the relevant transactions, details regarding the source and mode of payments received and made, and Form No. 26QB. However, the assessee failed to furnish any reply in response to the said notice before the AO. Thereafter, a show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act was issued, followed by another show-cause notice, requiring the assessee to furnish the requisite details. Despite being afforded sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not comply with the notices. Subsequently, in response to a non-compliance notice, the assessee furnished a reply along with copies of the Income-tax Return, sale deed, purchase deeds, valuation report of the property sold, an incomplete copy of the bank statement, and computation of income. The assessee failed to furnish complete and satisfactory information as called for, the source and mode of the investment made in the purchase of the immovable properties. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated

ITA No. 667/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 3– the investment made towards the purchase of the properties, along with the related stamp duty and registration charges, as unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

“…2. The assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is reject as the reasons stated for condoning the delay are not satisfactory. 3. Since, the assessee failed to disclose the true and clear information as asked, the source and mode of the amount applied for purchase of the properties is not justifiable and verifiable. Therefore, in such circumstances, the amount of Rs.6,18,751/- [Rs.4.44,544 + Rs.1,74,207] paid to purchase the two properties, the stamp duties of Rs.30.325/- (Rs.21,788+ 8,537] and the registration charges Rs.6.369/- [Rs.4,550+ Rs.1,819] are added back to the total income of the assessee being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6 The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the bank statement for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 had been duly furnished before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the same while adjudicating the appeal. We have carefully gone through the material available on record and, upon examining the bank statement, find that the source of the investment stands duly explained from the entries reflected therein. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned

ITA No. 667/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 4– CIT(A) is not justified. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 07.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 07.07.2026 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

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