SURESHCHANDRA PARANJIVANDAS PANCHAL,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD- 4, VALSAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1370/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 June 2026AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding income from Amway product sales and commissions was reflected in the bank account but ignored by the lower authorities. Therefore, the additions made were not justified.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessee's case and made additions for credit card payments and cash deposits, treating them as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on account of credit card payments and cash deposits were justified without considering the assessee's explanation of income from Amway sales and commissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.03.2026Pronounced: 03.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1370/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Sureshchandra Paranjivandas Income Tax Officer, Panchal, Ward 1, Bardoli, New Suthar Chawl, Surat -396195 Vs. Opp. Shakti Chamber, Azad Chowk, Valsad – 396001 PAN: AIFPP7190R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 03.06.2026 O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 14.05.2024 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on facts, and in law, the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeal) NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition amounting of Rs. 6,89,784/- and dismissing appeal of appellant. the 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case of your appellant, the relief claimed in Ground No. 1 is allowed. 3. Your appellant craves leave to add/alter or amend any of the grounds till the appeal is finally heard and decided.”

ITA No.1370/SRT/2025 Mr. Sureshchandra Paranjivandas Panchal 3. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011- 12 on 27.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,79,840/-. As per AIR information, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee made payment of credit card bills amounting to Rs. 2,36,100/- to ICICI Bank Ltd. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2018. Since the assessee has not responded the statutory notices, the assessment was proceeded under Section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee made payments against the credit card bills of ICICI Bank Ltd. As the assessee did not explain the payments, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,36,100/- and treated the same as undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.6,74,600/- on various dates in the account with ICICI Bank Ltd. and has not explained the cash deposit of Rs. 4,38,500/-. The same was added as undisclosed income. Further the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 15,184/- on account of deposits other than cash in bank.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that there is delay of 499 days in filing of appeal for which the assessee has filed the condonation of delay application. After going through the same, it appears that the reason for delay is genuine, hence delay is condoned.

6.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is retired individual and his source of income for the year was income from salary. The assessee also took agency of Amway products. On sale of the said products, he received cash which he deposited in his bank account. In turn, he has to pay the company by online transfer of purchase value. So he used his credit card to make the said payment to Amway Company of all the sales proceeds he received. In turn, he got commission from the said company. In fact, all these details were reflected in the

ITA No.1370/SRT/2025 Mr. Sureshchandra Paranjivandas Panchal bank account but was totally ignored by the Assessing Officer. Besides, this the CIT(A) has also passed ex-parte order.

7.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

8.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the amount and the transactions through credit card and the Amway company commission is reflected duly. These details were not taken into account either by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition on account of credit card bill as well as cash deposits as the assessee explained all the details about the income received by the assessee from the sale of Amway products to various customers and its commission from the said company. Thus, all the additions made by the Assessing Officer does not sustain.

9.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.06.2026

Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated: 03.06.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard File By order,

Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Surat Bench

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →