JAYSHRIBEN SHAH,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 83/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 June 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO relied on an excel sheet that did not contain the assessee's name and failed to confront the builder with the cash payment allegation. The assessee's payment details via cheques and NEFT were not disputed.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased property for Rs. 27,75,000/- and claimed payment via cheques and NEFT. The AO made an addition based on digital data from a third party, alleging cash payment, which the assessee disputed.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained investment based on third-party digital data, without proper confrontation and opportunity for cross-examination, is valid. Whether the AO correctly disregarded the assessee's evidence of payment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 148,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AR, Shri Saresa Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 19.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.83/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The Income Tax Officer, Mrs. Jayshriben Shah, 1, Bazar, Godhra, Ward-1, Timba Road, Vs. Income Tax Office, Panchmahal Civil Lines, Godhra Gujarat Gujarat PAN: AHLPS7718R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.K. Patel, AR : Shri Saresa Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing : 16.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2026 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 18.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2019-20.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “(1) That on facts and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.27,75,000/- made of alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on absolutely incorrect facts and by relying on Digital Data recovered from third party which is not admissible, nor confronted to appellant, nor granting an opportunity of cross examination to the appellant. (2) That on facts and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.27,75,000/- made u/s 69 of the Act in respect of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of property, and in taxing it u/s 115BBE of the and Act.” 3. The assessee filed return of income of Rs.3,84,860/- on 25.09.2019. As per the information, the assessee carried out the transaction of cash payment

ITA No.83/AHD/2026 Mrs. Jayshriben Shah for purchase of shop No.43 in Samanvay Samipya project for the amount of Rs.27,75,000/- in the A.Y. 2019-20. Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was issued on 27.03.2023. The assessee filed return of income, in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 14.07.2023 declaring total income of Rs.4,03,050/-. Statutory notices were issued which were replied by the assessee. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of Samanvay Sparsh on 30.05.2019 and excel sheet was found which is part of the impounded digital data from the premise located at old More Mega Mall Campus, Manjalpur, Vadodara. The assessee has made investment and her name appeared in excel sheet which stated that the cash was paid to the builder. Thus, the JAO concluded that the assessee made investment of Rs.27,75,000/- in immovable property Shop No.43, Samanvay Samipya project and the investment amount of Rs.27,75,000/- has been paid in cash. The assessee in her reply has given the details of payment through cheques along with the bank details and further submitted that the assets were purchased during the Financial Year 2023-24 and the assessee purchased Shop Nos.43 & 44 from Samanvay Sparsh the building called as Samanvay Samipya as on date 04.04.2023. The purchase value, the assessee submitted, was Rs.14,00,000/- only and no cash was paid at any point of time. After considering the assessee’s reply the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) did not accept the assessee’s contention and made the addition of Rs.27,75,000/-.

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. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that in the excel sheet as mentioned in page No.10 of the assessment order the purchaser is written Bharatkumar Jayshriben Shah. The address written was also of the said mentioned party. Thought he assessee accepted that the assessee purchased the asset in Samanvay Sparsh and the building called as Samanvay Samipya on date 04.04.2023 the purchase value was only Rs.14,00,000/- for which the assessee has paid cheques as well as the transaction was in NEFT. The details were very well

ITA No.83/AHD/2026 Mrs. Jayshriben Shah reflected in assessee’s submissions produced in the assessment order at page 7. These aspects were never taken into account by the AO.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee’s name is not shown in the excel sheet, in fact one Mr. Bharatkumar Jayshriben Shah was written and the purchaser’s name was also shown Bharatkumar Jayshriben Shah for cash component. But the excel sheet does not contain the assessee’s name and it is the detail of insight portal. Besides this, the assessee has given the details of payment which are reflected on page 7 of the assessment order which tallies with the assessee’s bank statement which was not at all disputed by the AO. The trial of cash as contemplated by the AO that of Rs.27,75,000/- was not at all confronted to the Samanvay Group and the concerned person of Samanvay project at any point of time. The AO has simply taken the excel sheet which does not contain the assessee’s name. Thus, after looking into the details given by the assessee before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) the addition does not sustain.

8.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2026

Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated: 19.06.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent

ITA No.83/AHD/2026 Mrs. Jayshriben Shah 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. Guard File By order,

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

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →