JAGDISH VIHOL,GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 1, PATAN, GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2426/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 June 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including details of agricultural income, commission income, and bank statements, which were ignored by the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was not justified.

What were the facts?

Cash amounting to Rs. 38,95,500/- was seized from three individuals, and the assessee claimed it as his. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and added the amount as unexplained money as the assessee failed to prove its source.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of cash as unexplained money was justified when the assessee provided evidence of its source, and whether the lower authorities properly considered this evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 139(4),Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2426/AHD/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Jagdish Vihol, Income Tax Officer, 10 Vrajswami Complex, Ward 1, Patan, 101/3, 1st Floor, Opp. Zaverivad Haveli, Vs. Doshivada NI Pole, Chinmay Corporate House, Ratanpole, Ahmedabad Patan, Gujarat Gujarat PAN: AEBPV3358P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chirag Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.04.2026 : 16.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 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 dated 08.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2016-17.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by assessing officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of IT Act and confirmed by first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserves to be uncalled for. 2. The assessing officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs. 38,95,500/-towards undisclosed source of cash of I.T. Act 1961. The same deserves to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to reserve its right to add, alter, amend OR DLEETE any ground of appeal during course of hearing.”

3.

The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income u/s 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) declaring total income of

ITA No.2426/AHD/2025 Mr. Jagdish Vihol

Rs.3,08,930/- on 11.01.2018. The Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) observed that cash amounting to Rs.38,95,500/- was seized by SHO Cantt, Varanasi on 20.05.2015 from the possession of three persons namely; Shri Bijali Lakuj, Mohd Bai & Panchal Naresh. The assessee claimed the said amount belonging to him. However, during the course of inquiry, the assessee failed to prove this source for the same. The assessee’s case was reopened for assessment vide notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 29.03.2021 and the assessee filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.04.2021 declaring total income of Rs.3,08,904/-. In response to statutory notices, the assessee filed submissions along with details and documents. After taking cognizance of the same, the AO held that assessee could not prove the source for the amount of Rs.38,95,500/- and therefore made addition u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money.

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 the assessee is deriving largely agricultural income as well as commission income and his opening balance was Rs.9,19,495/- from the A.Y. 2015-16 which also is part of the amount of Rs.38,95,500/-. The assessee submitted the cash book, trial balance and bills of agricultural income. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has maintained bank account which also reflects the cash component. The Ld. AR submitted that all these details were ignored by the AO as well as the CIT(A).

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). The Ld. DR further submitted that no evidence was filed to that extent.

7.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has submitted the details of agricultural income along with the details of the other farmers from whom the

ITA No.2426/AHD/2025 Mr. Jagdish Vihol

assessee received the land for cultivating and submitting the income earned from the said land after cultivation certain portion to the land owners. The assessee has also submitted the details of agricultural receipts along with the bank details which categorically mention the agricultural income. The assessee is also deriving commission income which is entered in cash book. All these documents were clearly before the AO but the AO ignored the source of income of the assessee. Thus, the cash deposits made by the assessee were clearly explained before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). Thus, the addition made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act related to cash deposits is not justified.

8.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2026

Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated: 16.06.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. Guard File

By order,

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