SHRI JITESH JAYANTIBHAI JASANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-3 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 869/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 September 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file complete documents and evidence before the AO, and some explanations were self-serving. While acknowledging that the case merits some relief, the Tribunal found that entire relief could not be granted. To meet the ends of justice and to take care of inconsistencies in documents and evidence submitted before the lower authorities, the Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition of Rs. 37,000/- (10% of Rs. 3,70,000/-) by applying the normal rate of income tax, not under section 115BBE. This decision was made to plug the leakage of revenue. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this adjudication shall not be treated as a precedent for any preceding or succeeding assessment year. The grounds regarding procedural violations (sections 250(6) and principles of natural justice) were not expressly decided upon by the Tribunal in its final holding, as the appeal was partly allowed based on quantum relief.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jitesh Jayantibhai Jasani, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. The appeal challenged an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which upheld an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- on account of alleged on-money payment for the purchase of Unit No. 1018 in project R.K. Empire, invoking sections 69A and 115BBE. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 5 days, which was condoned. The original assessment stemmed from a search and seizure action ('operation blue diamond') on real estate builders in Rajkot, which indicated the RK Group was involved in taking on-money payments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's action in making an addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of alleged on-money payment for the purchase of Unit No. 1018 in project R.K. Empire. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without following the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by violating the principles of natural justice. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that bank statements and registered documents of the property were submitted to prove the genuineness of the claim, and therefore, the addition made by the AO should be deleted. - Without prejudice, the assessee contended that if an addition is to be made, it should be restricted to 10% of the 'on-money' amount, as the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the RK Group. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR for the revenue relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 132,Section 148,Section 151,Section 142(1),Section 69,Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta. Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. SR DR
Hearing: 30/07/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2019-20, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.09.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the A

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 →