INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. BHARATBHAI BHAGWANDAS SONI, AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2280/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Bharatbhai Bhagwandas Soni, Income-Tax Officer, 111, Gold Souk Complex, B/h. Ward-1(1)(1), Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 [PAN : AINPS 6772 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Ms. Arti Shah, AR Revenue represented by: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr DR Date of Hearing 07.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 04.09.2025, under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

ITA No. 2280/Ahd/2025 ITO Vs. Bharatbhai Bhagwandas Soni Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2–

“3.8 Conclusion drawn : As per the information, during the year under consideration, the assessee received huge credits of Rs. 10,03,45,404/- in his bank account No. 912020010758667 maintained with Axis Bank Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain sources for the above credits vide notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee filed reply along with relevant information. Basing on assessee’s

ITA No. 2280/Ahd/2025 ITO Vs. Bharatbhai Bhagwandas Soni Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 3– submissions, a detailed show cause notice was issued wherein it has been proposed to treat the credits to the tune of Rs. 10,03,45,404/- made in bank account vide no. 912020010758667 held with the Axis Bank Ltd as unexplained money/credits u/s 69A of the IT Act. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee filed reply wherein the assessee try to explain that the credits appearing in above bank account are nothing but his business receipts. In support of which he submitted some sale invoices, bank statements and confirmation from purchasers of goods from the assessee. But, the assessee did not produced purchase invoices, mode receipt of goods in and out, quantitative details of goods purchased, stock register, confirmation from the sellers of the goods to the assessee for verification even though the above details were specifically called for. Further, though the assessee submitted VAT return but the same is not downloaded from official website or is authenticated by authority concerned and turnover reported in the said returns is not incommensurate with his credits as per details available with this office. In addition above, it is pertinent to mentioned here that the Audit report submitted by the assessee is silent about the total turnover/sales made during the year. Furthermore as verified from the record the credits appearing in his bank account apparently appears to have been received from many other persons including proprietorship concerns of family members. Moreover, out of the total debits from the said account major amount have been transferred to the proprietorship concerns of family members. In absence of requisite information as called for above, this office is not in a position verify the correctness of the information filed w.r.t sales and genuineness of the credits in the above bank account so as to treat the same as business transactions as held by the assessee. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the credits appearing the in his bank account to the tune of Rs. 10,03,45,404/- are undisclosed transactions / credits. Therefore, the above amount of Rs. 10,03,45,404/- treated as unexplained money/credits in the hands of the assessee and brought to tax u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of IT Act.” 4. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No. 2280/Ahd/2025 ITO Vs. Bharatbhai Bhagwandas Soni Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 4– 5. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that all relevant evidences had already been furnished before the Assessing Officer. The assessee specifically pointed out that the following documents had been produced during assessment proceedings:

i. Purchase register along with ledger accounts of suppliers, ii. Details of creditors along with names and PANs, iii. Transaction-wise details of receipts in bank account, iv. Sales register, v. Sample sale invoices, vi. Ledger accounts of customers, vii. Ledger confirmations from parties, to the extent available, viii. VAT returns and annual VAT return, ix. Reconciliation of bank transactions with books of account.

5.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the receipts reflected in the bank account represented business turnover duly recorded in the books of account and, therefore, provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. After considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the material available on record, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

““5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that appellant received Rs.10,03,45,404/- as credits by way of NEFT/RTGS in his bank account. AO required assessee to explain the credits in the bank account. Appellant submitted his response explaining that the credits appearing in his bank account was his business receipts. In support of the same appellant submitted copies of sample invoices, bank statement and confirmation from purchases. However, AO treated the entire amount as unexplained credits u/s 69A of the Act and added the entire amount of Rs.10,03,45,404/- as income.

ITA No. 2280/Ahd/2025 ITO Vs. Bharatbhai Bhagwandas Soni Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 5– 5.3 During the course of appeal proceedings, appellant submitted that he had furnished all the necessary evidences before the AO. The details of appellant’s submission before the AO is summarized as under: “The appellant submits that the AO vide show cause notice issued had asked for details to elaborate the genuineness of receipts in Axis Bank Account. In connection with the said requirements, the appellant vide submissions dated02.05.2023, 16.05.2023 and 18.05.2023 had submitted various details and evidences sufficiently establishing the veracity underlying transactions credited in the Axis Bank account as referred by the AO. The brief tabulation of the evidences as submitted before the learned AO is as hereunder- - Purchase register along with ledger account of persons from whom goods have been purchased (Annexure-2 of reply submitted dated 02.05.2023) - Details of creditors viz. name and PAN (Annexure-3 of reply submitted dated 02.05.2023) - Transaction-wise details of receipts in bank account along with name and PAN (Annexure-4 of reply submitted dated 02.05.2023) - Sales register (Annexure-5 of reply submitted dated 02.05.2023) - Sample Sales Invoices (Annexure-6 of reply submitted dated 02.05.2023) - Ledger Accounts of persons from whom amounts have been received in Bank account (Annexure-7 of reply submitted dated 02.05.2023) - Ledger Confirmation from seller (to the extent available) (Annexure-8 of reply submitted dated 02.05.2023) - VAT Returns (Annexure-9 of reply submitted dated 18.05.2023) - Annual VAT Return (Annexure-10 of reply submitted dated 18.05.2023) - Transaction-wise collation of transaction in books of accounts and bank statement (Annexure-11 of reply submitted dated 18.05.2023) The copy of submissions furnished before the learned AO as referred above along with annexures thereto are placed at page 60 to 165 of the Paperbook. Importantly, the appellant also availed hearing through video conferencing,

ITA No. 2280/Ahd/2025 ITO Vs. Bharatbhai Bhagwandas Soni Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 6– attended by authorized representative of the assessee. It is submitted that the assessee has amply explained AO about genuineness of the transactions as referred by him. However, the learned AO rather than appreciating the submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee, concluded the proceedings considering the receipts as unexplained and passed the assessment order dated 25.03.2023.” 5.4 Appellant submitted that though he had submitted the details like purchase register, list of creditors, sales register, ledger confirmation, VAT returns etc., the AO held that sufficient evidences were not produced. Once the details were produced, the onus casted upon the appellant stood discharged. The AO did not conduct any enquiry to show that the details produced by the appellant were not genuine. In such circumstances, the AO is not correct in adding the entire sale receipts as income u/s 69A of the Act. 5.5 Appellant submitted that provisions of section 69A of the Act will be attracted only in a case were any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article is not recorded in the books of accounts. But in the appellant’s case the sales transactions, which is recorded in the books of accounts, was added by the AO u/s 69A of the Act, which is illegal. Appellant relied on various decisions in support of this submission. 5.6 Appellant submitted that the AO has not appreciated the facts properly and made the addition arbitrarily. AO had considered the sales revenue while computing the total income of the year, and at the same time held the entire sale transactions as unexplained, which is not sustainable in law. 6. Appellant’s submissions were carefully considered. It is clear from both appellant’s submissions as well as assessment order that appellant had submitted all material evidences in the form of bank statements invoices, ledger accounts, confirmation letters etc. to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the AO concluded that the information submitted by the appellant was not sufficient and treated the entire amount of sale receipts has unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6.2 AO has not adduced any proper reason for coming to the conclusion that the receipts in the bank account were towards sales made in the business. Without making any enquiry on the evidences submitted by the appellant like purchase registers, sales registers, bank statement etc. The AO arbitrarily held that the receipts were unexplained income. Even after submission of all the requisite details, the AO held that he was not in a position to verify the

ITA No. 2280/Ahd/2025 ITO Vs. Bharatbhai Bhagwandas Soni Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 7– correctness of the information and hence he had to treat the income as unexplained. The AO’s action is highly arbitrary and without any factual or legal basis. In view of the above, the addition of Rs. 10,03,45,404/- u/s 69A of the Act is deleted.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

ITA No. 2280/Ahd/2025 ITO Vs. Bharatbhai Bhagwandas Soni Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 8– trading activities. The Assessing Officer, however, without conducting any independent enquiry or bringing any adverse material on record to disprove the evidences furnished by the assessee, proceeded to treat the entire bank credits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act merely on the ground that certain further details were not furnished. In our considered view, such an approach is unsustainable in law.

9.1 It is well settled that Section 69A of the Act applies only when money or valuable items are not recorded in the assessee’s books of account. In this case, the receipts in question were properly recorded in the books and shown as business receipts. Since there is no evidence that these receipts were unaccounted for or not genuine, the addition made under Section 69A of the Act is not sustainable.

9.2 We further find that the Assessing Officer has not brought any cogent evidence on record to rebut the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), after appreciating the facts and material on record, rightly deleted the addition. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) warranting interference.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 23/06/2026 **btk

ITA No. 2280/Ahd/2025 ITO Vs. Bharatbhai Bhagwandas Soni Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 9– आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 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 उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation ……words processed by the Hon’ble VP on his PC on …10.06.2026.. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ……15.06.2026 3. Other Member……….16.06.2026………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S ……….22.06.2026….………. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement …….23.06.2026…. 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S ………..23.06.2026………………. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ……….23.06.2026…. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………