KANUBHAI G. PATEL,MAHISAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, LUNAWADA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT& MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 335/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kanubhai Govindbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 01, Nava Karva, Lunawada, Ward-1, Panchmahal, Gujarat-389230 Lunawada [PAN No.ADTPP4870F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 1634 to 1639/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2018-19) Kanubhai Govindbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 01, Nava Karva, Lunawada, Ward-1, Panchmahal, Gujarat-389230 Lunawada [PAN No.ADTPP4870F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. K. Patel, AR Appellant by : Respondent by : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.04.2026 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM: These bunch of appeals are filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on separate orders dated 08.07.2022, 23.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2018-19.

First we are taking ITA No. 335/Ahd/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

ITA Nos. 335/Ahd/2022 and 1634 to 1639/Ahd/2022 Kanubhai Govindbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2012-13 to 2018-19 - 2 - “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has confirmed the additions of Rs. 44,50,000/- being the investment made in a residential flat out of agricultural income treating the same as made out of undisclosed sources under section 68 of the I T Act. 1.1 The appellant submit that all the relevant supporting documents justifying the agricultural income earned by the appellant were produced before Commissioner (Appeals). 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C etc., of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. As per the information available on record, the assessee received total remuneration of Rs. 19,26,662/- from Shital Education Trust during the year under consideration. The assessee did not file return of income. The Assessing Officer has reasoned to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 19,26,662/- for the A.Y. 2012-13. After recording reasons for issuance of notice under Sectiion 148 of the Act on 19.03.2019 the same was served to the assessee. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assesee filed return of income on 14.06.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 1,15,950/-. The assessee was a trustee of Shital Education Trust. During the course of survey proceedings under Section 133A in the case of Shital Education Trust, the statement of the assessee was recorded under Section 131 of the Act. In response to Question No. 23 of the statement, the assessee admitted to have received his share of remuneration from the trust amounting to Rs. 17,26,662/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively from the trust. Since the assessee has not offered the same to the tax the Assessing Officer has

ITA Nos. 335/Ahd/2022 and 1634 to 1639/Ahd/2022 Kanubhai Govindbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2012-13 to 2018-19 - 3 - further issued show cause notice. In response to the said show cause notice the Assessing Officer submitted that there was a provision to pay remuneration to the trust by Shri Shantilal R. Patel, Kanubhai G Patel and Vikaskumar M Patel working in the trust of Rs. 19,26,662/- and Rs. 19,26,662/- and Rs. 17,26,662/- respectively for the year under consideration. With respect to investment of Rs. 44.50 lakhs the assessee produce copies of bills of agricultural produce sold by assessee during the A.Y. 2005-06 to 2011-12 amounting to Rs. 47,17,063/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,26,662/- being the remuneration received from the trust and the share from the trust. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 44,50,000/- being the investment in immovable property.

ITA Nos. 335/Ahd/2022 and 1634 to 1639/Ahd/2022 Kanubhai Govindbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2012-13 to 2018-19 - 4 - 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. From the perusal of the records it can be seen that the assessee has shown the details of cash sales the assessee has given the dtails of return filed along with the property purchase during the relevant assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13. From the perusal of records, it can be seen that the assessee has not given the details of expenses related to the investment of Rs. 44.50 lakhs in residential flat prior to the agricultural income. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed this addition. Therefore, Ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed.

Now we come to A.Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19 as all the grounds of appeal similar in nature, so we are taking only the grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1634/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14

“1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the additions of Rs. 16,34,1267- as alleged remuneration from Shital Education Trust, solely on the basis of a statement recorded during survey, ignoring that the same was retracted by sworn affidavit and unsupported by corroborative evidence.

ITA Nos. 335/Ahd/2022 and 1634 to 1639/Ahd/2022 Kanubhai Govindbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2012-13 to 2018-19 - 5 - 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that no actual payment was made to the appellant, the accounting entries were reversed in audited accounts, and the impounded noting had no evidentiary value. 1.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in disregarding binding CBDT Instruction F.No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 and settled judicial /precedents holding that statements recorded u/s 133A have no evidentiary value unless supported by independent material. 1.3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in ignoring the fact that for the Asst. Year 2012-13. in the appellant's own case on identical facts, the CIT(A), Vadodara had deleted the similar addition on account of alleged remuneration from the same Trust. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under sectino234B, 234C etc., of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 13. As regards A.Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19 the Assessing Officer has deleted the addition of remuneration thereby observing that the general entry of remuneration of the later on reversed and the assessee has not received any remuneration during this period. But from the perusal of the records the assessee has categorically received more amount than the share of its trust being the trustee and thus, the same was in fact the amount which is continuously credited in the assessee’s account by the trust. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in this particular year has to be taken into account and can be simpliciter deleted on the basis that in 2012- 13 this addition was deleted by the CIT(A). Therefore, ITA Nos. 1634/Ahd/2025 to 1639/Ahd/2025 filed by the assessee are dismissed.

ITA Nos. 335/Ahd/2022 and 1634 to 1639/Ahd/2022 Kanubhai Govindbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2012-13 to 2018-19 - 6 - 14. In the combined result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 23/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 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, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 10.04.2026 2. Date on which the type draft is placed before the Dictating Member 10.04.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 22.04.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .04.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 23.04.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 23.04.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………