RASILABEN JAYSUKHBHAI TILVA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 929/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2026AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to submit the required documentary evidence and participate effectively in the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's counsel filed written submissions but did not appear, and the Revenue argued that documentary evidence mentioned in the submissions was missing. The Tribunal noted the absence of supporting documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified without proper inquiry and supporting evidence, and whether the CIT(A)'s order should be set aside due to lack of documentary proof.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Hearing: 12/03/2026Pronounced: 08/05/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट �ायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member

आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.929/RJT/2025 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year :2010-2011 Rasilaben Jaysukhbhai Tilva The ITO, बनाम/ A-7, PUshkar Apartment, 22 New Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot Vs Jagnath Plot Nr. DR. Dastur Hospital, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACYPT8060H (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) िनधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Written Submission राज�व क� ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/03/2026 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

Captioned appeal filed by assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), dated 12.12.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 27.12.2017.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, when the mater called out for hearing. The registry has also sent notice of hearing on the address provided in Form No. 36 despite of this, the assessee did not appear before this Tribunal.

However the advocate of the assessee who also did not appear before Tribunal but he has filed written submission and submitted that based on the written submission filed before the Bench, the adjudication of the appeal may be done by the Bench.

3.

On the other hand, ld. D.R. for the Revenue submitted that since the assessee has filed the written submission but did not file the documents and evidences mentioned in the written submission. Therefore without documentary evidences the adjudication cannot be done by this Bench based on written submission only. Therefore since these written submissions filed by the assessee, ground-wise, do not accompany the documentary evidences which are mentioned in the written submission, therefore the matter may be restored back to the file of assessing officer with the direction to the assesse to file documentary evidences before the assessing officer.

4.

I have heard Ld. D.R. for the Revenue and noted that assessee has filed the following written submissions which are reproduced below; Written Submission(Appeal may kindly be decided accepting submission made below):- 1.1 The Ld. A.O. made following 2 additions as per assessment order page no.9. 1.2 Both the above additions are deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) considering that as regard 12,86,000 the amount is very much appearing and found acceptable hence amount of 12,86,000 is deleted (Copy of bank Account is enclosed here with for kind perusal). 1.3 As regard addition of Rs. 2,70,000 towards household expenses the Ld. CIT acceptance the contention that assessee is a female having husband and sons and Ld. A.O. erred in not making any inquiry as regard earning other family members and it was erroneous to considered that assessee female is meeting with total HS expenses is and made huge sum addition of Rs 2,70,000 is deleted.. 1.4 Thus in respect of both the allow addition the main conclusion by the Ld CTT(A) is that Ld A.O, has not taken care to make proper inquiry even through his own inspector.

2.1 Thus is mention above conclusion of Ld CIT(A) it equally there and other addition is made.

2.2 As regard addition of Rs. 1,10,930 mentioning that total income as per return filed on 2 11-2017 in response to notice U/s. 148 while making this addition he also made another addition of Rs 1,66,584 mention above stating that which is as per original return kind attention is invited to page no.6of assessment order at para 1 he admits that once return of income in compliances of notice U/s. 148 the data and contents of the said return supersedes the data and contains of the original return hence figures disclosed in return filled U/s. 148 are to be treated as valid one. 2.3 Thus the above addition in respect of original and revised return, addition of both of them is contrary to Ld A.O. own admission and also is against principle of natural justice and settled law that one income cannot be taxed file, double taxation of the same income it not furnish able even assessee has being a lady might have mention the same under different head 2.4 Thus the Ld A.O. made addition without verifying even by sending is his own inspector it is therefore requested that addition of Rs. 1,66.584 or 1,10,930, either may kindly be deleted. 2.5 The assessee very humbly rely on the decision of Supreme Court and CBDT guidelines(Copy enclosed) which the Ld A.O. ought to have followed.

3.1 As regard addition of Rs. 4,94,641 it is mention at page no.8 para 10 of assessment order that assessee has from capital of 6,70,081 as on 31-3-2011 and has from capital only of Rs 175440 as on 31-3-2011 thus concluding addition of 494641 (670081 less 1.75,44) the same total income U/s. 68. 3.2 Copy of trading and profit and loss account of the assessee furnished before the Ld AO shows that in trading account assessee has made share sales of Rs 3,63,92,460 and purchase of r 3.04.19.370 and has thus from gross profit of Rs. 1,44,770 and net profit of Rs 1,10,930. Thus since assessee has made commodity transaction of very huge amount is mention above for sales and purchase viz. 3.63.92.460/3.64.19.370. The assessment order mention nothing regarding such huge transcation. 3.3 Similar y copy of bank account of Rajkot Nagrik Bank (enclosed) shows that there is debit of Rs. 13,21.246.63 and credit of Rs. 13,20,694,50. The assessment order against mentions anything regarding such huge bank transaction with the Ld. A.O. has erred in not considering the same 3.4 Page no. 8 para 10 of assessment order is absolutely erroneous making addition of Rs.4,94,641 since very huge transaction of shares sales and purchase viz. 3.63,92,460 as also Nagrik bank debit and credit debit 13,21,246.63 and credit 13,20,694.50 it establish that the capacity of assessee for such huge transaction are found acceptable than addition of Rs 4,94,641 is totally uncalled for and without considering very properly, the Ld A.O. made addition may kindly be deleted,

4 Assessee also fully rely for this on the decision of Hon Supreme Court und CBDI'S guidelines (copy enclosed) and humbly submit that the Ld A.O. has erred and not following decisions of superior authorities. Aseessee is reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court and guidelines of the Hon CBDT are mention below.

Guesswork should not be wild but reasonably connected to available material-Though there is an element of guesswork in a 'best judgment assessment", it should not be a wild one, but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case Though the section provides for a summary method because of the default of the assessee, it does not enable the assessing authority to function capriciously without regard to the available material-State of Kerala V/s. Velukutty [1966] 60 ITR 239 (SC).

Estimate must be honest and fair The authority making a best judgment assessee must make an honest and fair estimate of the income of the assessee and though arbitrariness cannot be avoided in such an estimate, the same must not be capricious but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of the case Brij Bhushan Lal Parhuman Kumar vix CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC). Assessee must be apprised of comparable cases While making a best judgment assessment on the basis of comparable cases, the assessee must be apprised of those cases and given an opportunity to have his say in the matter-K. Baliah vis. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys.)

Action must not be dishonest, vindictive or capricious-The officer making a best judgment assessment must not act dishonestly, or vindictively or capriciously because he must exercise judgment in the matter. He must make what he honestly believes to be a fait estimate of the proper figure of assessment, and for the purpose he must be able to take into consideration knowledge and repute in regard to the assessee's circumstances and his own knowledge or previous returns/assessment of the assessee and all other matters which he thinks will assist him in arriving at a fair and proper estimate and though there must necessarily be guesswork in the matter, it must be honest guesswork-CIT Vs. Laxminarain Badridas [1937] 5 TTR 170 (PC)

6.

The appeal may kindly be allowed as prayed for.

5.

I note that the written submissions as mentioned above has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, on behalf of the assessee and Ld. Counsel for the assessee does not wish to appear before this Tribunal. I note that the documents and evidences which are mentioned in the above written submissions were not filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before the Bench. Therefore I am of the view that the matter should be restored back to the file of assessing officer for fresh adjudication. I also direct the assessee to submit the documents and evidences as and when called by the assessing officer in connection with the above written submissions and participate in the assessment proceedings effectively and should not take unnecessarily adjournments.

6.

With these directions, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 08/05/2026.

Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 08/05/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. Guard File By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot

Page 5 of 5

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →