SAMEER NAGENDRA DALIA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2) PREVIOUS WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

ITA 304/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 September 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced requisite evidence before the AO due to certain unavoidable circumstances. While the assessee had furnished details before the CIT(A), the application for additional evidence was rejected, and the additions were confirmed. The Tribunal considered that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). For the negligence in not producing evidence before the AO, the assessee was burdened with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish requisite details and evidence, and if deemed fit, to call for a remand report from the AO before deciding the case on merits. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The specific findings on each ground of appeal were not made as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sameer Nagendra Dalia, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. There was a delay of 33 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the Tribunal due to medical reasons of the assessee. The assessee's appeal challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A) concerning alleged unexplained money, unexplained expenditure, and disallowance of deduction under Section 80C. The assessee contended that the AO did not appreciate that cash deposits represented gross business receipts offered to tax under Section 44AD, that cash payments were explained by business income and bank withdrawals, and that tuition fees were evidenced by bank statements. The assessee also argued that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was wrongly applied.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,35,09,300/- made by the AO under Section 69A as unexplained money, when the assessee argued these represented gross business receipts already offered to tax under Section 44AD. The assessee contended the addition was illegal and devoid of merit. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,09,500/- made by the AO under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure on account of cash payment to Kotak Mahindra Bank Credit Card, when the assessee argued the source of payment was explained by disclosed business income and bank withdrawals. The assessee contended the addition was illegal and devoid of merit. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,08,234/- under Section 80C on account of tuition fees paid for the assessee's children, despite the payments being evidenced by bank statements. The assessee contended the addition was illegal and devoid of merit. 4. Whether, without prejudice to the above, the AO erred in charging tax at the enhanced rate of 60% under Section 115BBE instead of 30%, if the additions were held to be applicable, given that the transactions pertained to the previous year 2016-17, prior to the effective date of the amended Section 115BBE. The assessee contended the enhanced rate had no application to prior transactions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that due to unavoidable circumstances, requisite documents were not furnished before the AO, but were provided to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) rejected the application for additional evidence and confirmed the additions. The assessee sought an opportunity to present details before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 44AD,Section 69C,Section 80C,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Gangadhar Panda

For Appellant: Shri Mahamadrurani Khatri, AR
Hearing: 28/09/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi dated 28/10/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal. A separate application for the condonation of delay alongwi

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →