THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RUMALJI BHIKHAJI THAKOR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI BHIKAJI JAMAJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 545/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 April 2026AY 2012-1310 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Revenue and a cross-objection by the assessee, Smt. Rumalji Bhikaji Thakor (Legal Heir of Lt. Shri Bhikaji Jamaji Thakor), against the order of the CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad for Assessment Year 2012-13. The proceedings were initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search at the premises of Shri Chaturbhai B. Kotadia, where documents related to the assessee were found. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of 'on money' received from land sales, disallowance of exemption under Section 54B, and fair market value (FMV) of land. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting some additions. The Revenue's appeal challenges these deletions, while the assessee's cross-objection challenges the CIT(A)'s dismissal of grounds related to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Section 153C of the Act because the search was conducted at the premises of a third party (Shri Chaturbhai B. Kotadia), not the assessee. Section 153C is applicable to persons other than those referred to in Section 153A. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the entire addition on account of long-term capital gain. The Tribunal noted that the 'banakhat' indicated a higher sale consideration than what was declared, and the assessee conveniently omitted Rs. 1 crore shown in the agreement. The Tribunal also found that the DVO's valuation was lower than the assessee's claim, and the assessee's registered valuer report raised suspicions that were not clarified. Furthermore, the assessee failed to provide details of selling agricultural produce, making the claim for Section 54B exemption unsustainable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was justified. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the AO's invocation of Section 153C and the satisfaction recorded. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition during assessment under Section 153C must be confined to incriminating material found during a search under Section 132(1), as held by the CIT(A), or if Section 153C allows for additions in the absence of such specific material for the six assessment years preceding the search, as argued by the Revenue. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A)'s interpretation would render the assessment scheme ineffective. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,18,00,452/- on account of 'on money' being the difference between the 'banakhat' (agreement to sell) and the registered sale deed, as argued by the Revenue. The Revenue asserts that documentary evidence found during the search confirms the possibility of 'on money'. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of the disallowance of exemption under Section 54B, as argued by the Revenue. The Revenue claims the assessee failed to prove agricultural activities and consumption of produce. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of the Fair Market Value (FMV) determined by the AO based on the DVO's valuation report, and whether the AO should have considered the FMV as on 01.04.1981 as determined by the DVO, as argued by the Revenue. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's ground challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C by the AO instead of Section 153A, and whether the satisfaction recorded by the AO was in accordance with Section 153C, as argued by the assessee in its cross-objection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 132,Section 153A,Section 54B,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 158BB,Section 139,Section 55A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchika Nagar, C.A
For Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R

Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

I.T(SS)A No. 545/Ahd/2019 & CO No. 39/Ahd/2020 Shri Bhikaji Jamaji Thakor, A.Y. 2012-13

The appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are against the order dated 23-09-2019 passed by CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and

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 153C

All 9,497 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →