MINOUTI HERSH JANI,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by both the assessees are similar and identical, which are reproduced below:

When these appeals were called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that issue involved in these two appeals, is squarely covered in favour of the assessees by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Rajkot, in group family cases, in ITA No.544/Rjt/2025, vide order dated 23.10.2025, wherein the Hon’ble ITAT has sustained the addition @ 8% on the “on-money” as an estimated addition in the hands of the assessee. The finding of the Tribunal in ITA No.544/Rjt/2025, are as follows: “We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued that the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 1,68,667/- made u/s 69A of the Act, on the ground that there is no valid incriminating material or direct evidence to prove that the assessee made any cash payment in relation to the purchase of property. It was further argued by ld. Counsel that the seized documents referred to by the assessing officer mentioned the name of a different individual, that is, Manish Parmar, and that the documents relied upon are unsigned and therefore lack evidentiary value. The ld. Counsel also stated that assessee has also denied making any on-money payment and has claimed that she held only 1/3rd share in the said property. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and noted that entire “on money” cannot be the profit of the assessee, therefore, I am of the view that profit element out of Rs.1,68,667/- should be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account smallness of the amount of Rs.1,68,667/-, I direct the assessing officer to compute the net profit @ 8% of Rs. 1,68,667/-, which comes to Rs.13,493/-. I also direct the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.13,493/-, applying the normal rate of income tax and not under section 115BBE of the Act. Since, I have adjudicated the issue involved in assessee`s case, taking into account, the peculiar facts and circumstances, and smallness of the amount, as narrated above, therefore, it is made clear that instant adjudication shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms.”

The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) relied on the order of Assessing Officer.

As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot, in assessee`s own family group cases and there is no change in facts and law and ld DR for the revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings of the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the binding precedent of the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot in the assessee’s own family group case (supra), I adjudicate the issue in these two appeals as follows:

In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.354/Rjt/2026 and ITA No.359/Rjt/2026) filed by the two assessees, are partly allowed, in above terms.