PANKAJ KANTILAL JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 1(3)(1) AHMEDABAD, INCOME TAX OFFICE, VEJALPUR, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 723/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2013-14 was reopened based on information of investment in commodity trading. The assessee claimed the actual investment was much lower and represented rollovers, not fresh investment, which the lower authorities did not adequately consider.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of reopening the assessment and the correct treatment of the investment under Section 69, with the assessee seeking an opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah, AR
Hearing: 21/04/2026Pronounced: 13/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.723/Ahd/2026 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pankaj Kantilal Jain, Income Tax Officer, 22, Jecorbhi Chambers, बनाम/ Ward-1(3)(1), v/s. Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad Jawahar Chowk S.O, Ahmedabad-380008. �थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AGKPJ8598 E (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�त् यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vishal D Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 13/05/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] dated 15.01.2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-2014.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“…1. Ground No. 1- Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case. Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (hereinafter refereed as Hon'ble CIT(A)) has erred in law and facts

ITA No.723/Ahd/2026 Pankaj K Jain vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14 2 in confirming action taken by learned AD in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act as there was no reason to believe that the income of the Appellant had escaped assessment 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts confirming learned AO's action in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act as the learned AO had not applied his mind before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming action taken by learned AO in law and facts in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act beyond the prescribed time limit of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, ie AY 2013-14 when total income escaping assessment, if any, was only Rs 99,000 and hence, reassessment proceedings are time barred and bad in law. 2. Ground No. 2-Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in adjudicating addition of INR 55,28.410/- under section 69 of the Act. 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in treating the gross amount of purchases Rs. 55.28.410 as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had only made an initial investment of Rs. 10.36.204 out of existing funds and savings and that the impugned amount represented merely the rotation/rollover of funds arising out of earlier transactions and not fresh investment. 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in making addition under section 69 of the Act without appreciating the fact that amount invested in NSEL amounting to Rs. 10,36,204 were duly recorded in bank statements with ils source adequately explained by existing savings 3. Ground No. 3-Incorrect levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming interest levied under section 234A and 234B of the Act. 4. Ground No. 4-Initiation of penalty proceeding 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case. Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings by learned AO under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act.…”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 was reopened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of information that the assessee had

ITA No.723/Ahd/2026 Pankaj K Jain vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14 3 made an investment of Rs. 55,00,000/- in commodity trading with NSEL. The assessee was called upon to explain the source of such investment, which could not be furnished to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has furnished necessary details to demonstrate that, in fact, the assessee had not made investment of Rs.55,00,000/-, rather the actual investment of the assessee was from Rs.9,00,000/- to 10,00,000/- which was reinvested time and again. It was contended that the Assessing Officer ignored the said factual position and had taken into consideration the entire purchases and repurchases treating it as total investment of Rs.55,00,000/-. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A), however, did not properly consider the aforesaid submission made by the assessee, but, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, observing that the assessee has not furnish the source of investment during the assessment proceedings.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer.

5.

The Ld. DR, however, relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the view, that the interests of justice would be well served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. However, for any lapses on the part of the assessee, the assessee can be burdened with reasonable costs. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 30 days from

ITA No.723/Ahd/2026 Pankaj K Jain vs. ITO Asst.Year 2013-14 4 the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The assessee shall furnish proof of such payment before the Assessing Officer. Subject to fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

7.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-/- (Annapurna Gupta) ( Sanjay Garg ) Accountant Member Judicial Member (True Copy) अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 13.05.2026 Manish, Sr. P.S. आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) िवभागीय �ितिनिध अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर 5. अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →