RAKESHKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA PANWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(5), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1469/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 June 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to present their case on merit and provide necessary explanations.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 13,16,000/- in cash during the demonetization period, claiming it was from cash in hand. However, the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence to the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were sufficiently explained by the assessee, and if not, whether Section 115BBE was correctly applied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH SMC, SURAT

Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Ms Chaitali Shah, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.04.2026Pronounced: 16.06

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH "SMC", SURAT Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member ITA No: 1469/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Rakeshkumar Vs ITO, Pravinchandra Panwala, Ward – 1(2)(5), 29 China Gate-2, New City Surat Light Road, Althan, Surat - 395007, Gujarat PAN: ADQPP0120R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms Chaitali Shah, CA Revenue Represented by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.06. 2026 आदेश/ORDER PER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Bengaluru [In short, ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] dated 17.10.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1 On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making the addition of Rs. 13,08,000/- u/s 68 of

2 ITA No. 1469/Srt/2025 Rakeshkumar Pravinchandra Panwala Vs ITO the I.T. Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credits in bank accounts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in taxing the addition by taking the rate @77.25% by attracting S. 115BBE instead of normal tax rate. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the assessing officer has erred in taxing the income u/s 115BBE @ 77.25% in a retrospective manner by applying the duly substituted S.115BBE inserted retrospectively instead of taxing it at 35.54 % as per the old provisions of S.115BBE. 4. It is therefore prayed that addition made by assesing officer and confirmed by learned CIT (A) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in course of hearing of the appeal."

2.

The facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 05.06.2017, declaring total income of Rs.95,940/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) asked the assessee to furnish required details/evidences by issuing notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, but the assessee failed to do. The assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.13,16,000/- in his account held with The Surat People’s Co-op. Bank Ltd. The assessee stated that he has made cash deposits in the bank account out of his cash in hand, however, he did not furnish supporting evidence in support of his claim. Various statutory notices were issued to the appellant, but

3 ITA No. 1469/Srt/2025 Rakeshkumar Pravinchandra Panwala Vs ITO there was total non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The assessee neither furnished the source of cash deposits nor explained the reasons for keeping such huge amount of cash in hand. The AO, thus, made addition of Rs.13,08,000/- by treating the cash deposits as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order held that the explanation provided by the appellant before him is unsustainable as it lacks credibility. 4. Further, aggrieved by the impugned order, this present appeal has been filed before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a paper book containing the replies filed by the assessee, cash book, bank statements etc. The Ld. Counsel claimed that the details were also submitted before the AO and ld. CIT(A). Since the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to explain its case on merit before the JAO. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities.

4 ITA No. 1469/Srt/2025 Rakeshkumar Pravinchandra Panwala Vs ITO 6. We have considered the rival submissions and materials available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the assessment order was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) ex parte, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest his case on merit. In the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional AO with a direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and to furnish all details and explanation as required by JAO and not to seek unnecessary adjournments without valid reasons. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963 on 16/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Dated 16/06/2026 *Ranjan आदेश�ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/ Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue

5 ITA No. 1469/Srt/2025 Rakeshkumar Pravinchandra Panwala Vs ITO 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेशसे,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����, सूरत

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →