VAISHALI DHAVAL GANATRA,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 778/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 August 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially filed her return under the presumptive taxation scheme. A search operation revealed digital evidence of unaccounted cash transactions related to a property jointly booked by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 1,76,000 as unexplained investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte due to non-receipt of notices should be set aside. Whether the assessee deserves another opportunity to present her case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44ADA,Section 132,Section 148,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh Sodha, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 05/08/2026Pronounced: 05/08/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 778/RJT/2026 [ �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21 ] Vaishali Dhaval Ganatra ACIT Ravi Randal Krupa, Kanak Nager- 10, Aayakar Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Race Vs. Sant Kabir Road, Rajkot-360003, Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001, Gujarat Gujarat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BVPPG5761H (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Divyesh Sodha, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05/08/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05/08/2026

:: ORDER :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’], dated 29.12.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by assessing officer u/s. 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2025.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, originally filed her return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 on 13.09.2020 under the presumptive taxation scheme prescribed under section 44ADA of the Income-

ITA No. 778/RJT/2026 Vaishali Dhaval Gantra tax Act, 1961, declaring a total income of Rs.4,87,580/-. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out by the DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1, Rajkot in the case of leading real estate developers, including RK Group, Rajkot. During the course of the search, digital evidence was allegedly recovered from software known as “Miracle”, indicating certain unaccounted cash transactions relating, inter alia, to Unit No. A/404 of RK Dreamland-2, which had been jointly booked by the assessee and her co-owner during the Financial Year 2019- 20 relevant to AY 2020-21. On the basis of the said information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 on 31.03.2024. In response thereto, the assessee filed her return of income on 29.04.2024, declaring the same total income of Rs.4,87,580/- as originally returned. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the alleged cash payment of Rs.1,76,000/- purportedly made towards the purchase of the aforesaid property. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment under section 147 of the Act vide order dated 23.03.2025, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.6,63,580/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the appeal was dismissed ex parte on account of non-compliance with the notices issued on the dates fixed for hearing.

4.

Still aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. It has been submitted that the assessee could not effectively represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as the notices were not duly received. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the decision of the authority below.

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 778/RJT/2026 Vaishali Dhaval Gantra 05. We, after hearing the rival submission of the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to comply with all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 05/08/2026 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// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 44ADA

All 98 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44ADA →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →