GIRISHKUMAR C AMIN HUF,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

ITA 317/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed Grounds 3 and 4, deleting the addition of INR 30,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 69 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the property was purchased for INR 30,00,000/- by cheque, and while the HUF did not have a separate bank account at the time, the funds were provided by the Karta, Shri Girish C. Amin, from his personal bank account. The Tribunal found that a Karta is not prohibited from advancing funds to the HUF and that the Karta's bank statement showed sufficient funds. The Tribunal also noted that identical facts and documents were placed before the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the source of funds was explained and Section 69 was not applicable. As the addition was deleted on merits, Grounds 1 and 2 challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings were dismissed as infructuous. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Girishkumar C Amin HUF, is appealing an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which upheld an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The ITO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information that the HUF purchased immovable commercial property for INR 30,00,000/- during the previous year 2017-2018. The assessee, who had not filed an original return, filed a return declaring INR 1,000/- during reassessment. The ITO treated the INR 30,00,000/- purchase consideration as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, as the bank account produced by the assessee was opened after the transaction. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) assumed jurisdiction and completed the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act without satisfying the mandatory conditions prescribed under law, and whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 and passing of order under Section 148A(d) were bad in law, mechanical, and based on incorrect facts, rendering the reassessment void ab initio? The assessee argued that the AO failed to satisfy mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction and that the proceedings were void. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point. 2. Whether the AO erred in treating the purchase consideration of ₹30,00,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act? The assessee contended that the transaction was supported by registered documents and bank transactions, and the investment was made from the personal savings of the Karta of the HUF, who is a regular taxpayer. The assessee also argued that the property was re-sold within 15 days at the same price, resulting in no capital gain, and that the AO's addition was based on suspicion. The revenue argued that the HUF is a distinct entity, and the assessee failed to submit satisfactory evidence of the source of funds during assessment and appellate proceedings, justifying the addition under Section 69.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 18/11/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissedthe appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 14/03/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →