JAGDISHCHANDRA KANTILAL TRIVEDI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1521/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 June 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit all relevant documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed without a detailed discussion on merits, allegedly due to non-compliance and lack of sufficient opportunities. The assessee, a senior citizen, claimed unawareness of email notices and argued that the addition was based on a cancelled sale deed and that he acted as an authorized person for a company.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper adjudication and whether the addition under Section 69 was justified given the evidence presented.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Ms Kaushani Shah, AR on behalf of Shri Hardik Vora, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 16.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1521/Ahd/2026 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jagdishchandra Kantilal Trivedi, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-4, OJAS Apartment, Ward-5(3)(1), Nehru Nagar Char Rastra, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015.

[PAN :AAMPT0184 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms Kaushani Shah, AR on behalf of Shri Hardik Vora, AR Respondent by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.06.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without discussing the grounds on merits.

ITA No. 1521/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 2– 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunities of being heard. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order without duly appreciating that the assessee, being a senior citizen aged about 75 years and not being well-versed with technology, remained unaware of the hearing notices served through email. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 72,77,390/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.72,77,390/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment, despite the assessee furnishing complete documentary evidence including Board Resolution, Ledger entries, Bank statements, Affidavit of Trust Administrator, and Form 7/12 revenue records proving that the purchase was on behalf of Ruchi Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and not in his individual capacity. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making an addition u/s 69 solely on the basis of a sale deed, without appreciating that the said deed was subsequently cancelled and rendered null and void in law, thereby vitiating the very foundation of the addition. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making an addition of Rs.70,229/- on account of disallowance of expenses, despite the assessee having furnished the supporting Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet for A.Y. 2013-14. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disregarding the principle of consistency, since assessments of the co-owners on identical facts were completed u/s 143(3) without any addition, and the assessee was entitled to parity of treatment. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee acted only as an authorized person on behalf of Ruchi Nirman Pvt. Ltd.,

ITA No. 1521/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 3– and therefore could not be treated as a beneficial owner of the properties in question. 10.On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11.It is prayed that the addition made by the assessing officer may kindly be deleted considering the facts and evidence on record. 12. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.

3.

On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded several opportunities of hearing on 27.08.2025, 07.11.2025, 21.11.2025 and 06.02.2026 to furnish details, clarifications and explanations to substantiate the source of unexplained investments. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all relevant bank statements/documents/evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall comply with the notices issued by the Revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

ITA No. 1521/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 4– 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 16.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 16.06.2026 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →