SANJAYKUMAR JIVANBHAI BHATIYA,DEESA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR

ITA 328/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 September 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had provided several opportunities to the assessee on 28.08.2025, 19.11.2025, and 27.11.2025 to furnish details regarding the source of cash deposits. Despite these opportunities, the assessee failed to provide the required details and supporting evidence. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's action based on the available material. Before the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel admitted the inability to furnish details before the lower authorities and requested another opportunity. Considering the interest of substantial justice and the assessee's request to present evidence, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents, including bank statements and explanations for cash deposits, and to comply with the Ld. CIT(A)'s notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjaykumar Jivanbhai, filed an appeal against the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The assessee's original return declared a total income of Rs.4,80,120/-. A search under section 132 on 11.11.2022 in the case of Khadva Group and others led to the discovery of incriminating documents and data related to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's case was reopened by issuing a notice under section 148 on 31.03.2024. The assessee filed a revised return on 08.04.2024, declaring the same income. A notice under section 143(2) was issued, but no reply was furnished. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.15,71,900/- under section 69A as unexplained money and applied section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in reopening the assessment under section 147. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,71,900/- made under section 69A. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that provisions of section 69A could not have been invoked. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking section 115BBE in respect of the addition made under section 69A. 6. Whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in passing orders without properly appreciating facts, submissions, and documentary evidence, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 7. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under sections 234A/B/C/D. 8. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they could not furnish necessary details and supporting documents before the lower authorities and requested one more opportunity to substantiate their claim. The assessee relied on the principle of substantial justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena, Sr.DR
Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2020- 2021. ITA No.328/AHD/2026, AY-2020-21 Sanjaykumar J Bhatiya - 2–

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Appeal:-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing an ex-parte order in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) ha

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →