MANISHA SURESHCHANDRA RAJDEV,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 254/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 June 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following a previous similar judgment, agreed to restrict the addition to 10% of the undisclosed income, i.e., ₹1,00,100, and directed it to be taxed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened based on information from a search operation indicating a cash payment of ₹10,01,000 for a project. The Assessing Officer made an addition of this amount under Section 69, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the entire amount of alleged undisclosed cash payment should be added to the income, and if so, whether Section 115BBE should apply.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 148,Section 115BBE

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 Vimal Desai, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 23/06/2026

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 आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 254/Rjt/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2019-20) Manish Sureshchandra Rajdev Income Tax Office Ward 1(2)1, Yogesh Kunj 3/1, Hansraj Nagar, Vs. IT Office New Aayakar Behind Mahadev Temple, Near Bhavan, Vatiaka Rajkot Junction Plot, Rajkot Gujrat Gujrat 360001 360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIWPR3086P (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23/06/2026 30/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement : ORDER Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2019-20, 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 (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 19.12.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act, dated 12.03.2024.

ITA No.254/Rjt/2026 [ AY 2019-20 ] Manish Sureshchandra Rajdev v. ITO

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹1,29,380. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of information available on the Insight Portal. The information revealed that search and seizure operations were carried out in various concerns of the RK Group. During such operation, it was noticed that certain incriminating digital documents/books of account were found and seized. From the seized material, it was observed that during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2019–20, the assessee had allegedly paid cash of ₹10,01,000 towards booking/purchase of a project namely “The City Centre”. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a return of income declaring the same income as originally returned. Subsequent notices were also issued and, in response thereto, the assessee filed submissions from time to time. The Assessing Officer carried out a detailed examination of the documents and submissions furnished by the assessee and completed the assessment by making an addition of ₹10,01,000 under section 69 of the Act to the total income declared by the assessee. 3. Dissatisfied with the order of the AO assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed and the order of the Assessing Officer was sustained. 4. Still, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before this tribunal, during the course of hearing before the Tribunal, it was submitted that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Tribunal in ITA No. 506/Rajkot/2026 involving similar facts and

Page 2 of 3

ITA No.254/Rjt/2026 [ AY 2019-20 ] Manish Sureshchandra Rajdev v. ITO

circumstances, wherein the Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition to 10% of the undisclosed income. In the present case, the assessee fairly submitted that, in order to buy peace of mind and avoid prolonged litigation, he was willing to accept an addition to the extent of 10% of ₹10,01,000. Accordingly, the assessee agreed that an addition of ₹1,00,100, being 10% of the alleged undisclosed amount, may be sustained and taxed at normal rates instead of applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that addition be restricted to ₹1,00,100, being 10% of ₹10,01,000, and that the same be taxed under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act and not under section 115BBE. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member S राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 30/06/2026 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

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →