GAURAV HARSHADBHAI CHOKSHI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

ITA 552/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 September 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits of INR 14,37,910/- were sufficiently explained by prior cash withdrawals aggregating to INR 15,73,500/- from the same bank account during the relevant financial year. The Tribunal noted that the bank statements and the 'Peak Credit Summary' clearly indicated sufficient cash availability from documented withdrawals to cover the subsequent deposits. In the absence of contrary evidence showing the withdrawn funds were used elsewhere, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the primary onus under Section 69A. Therefore, the addition of INR 14,37,910/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A was deleted. Consequently, Grounds 1, 2, and 3 were allowed. Regarding Ground 4, the Tribunal dismissed the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC(1) as premature. The appeal was partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gaurav Harshadbhai Chokshi, filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which dismissed his appeal against an assessment order dated March 23, 2024. The assessment order, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertained to Assessment Year 2018-2019. Reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information regarding cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee explained that cash deposits of INR 14,37,910/- in an active bank account were sourced from prior cash withdrawals from the same account, totaling INR 15,73,500/-. The Assessing Officer rejected this explanation, treating the deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxing it under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, citing the test of human probabilities and the failure to show funds withdrawn were re-deposited.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) passed a non-speaking, vague, and cryptic order, failing to address the assessee's contentions, making it bad in law and devoid of merit, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record any specific argument on this ground. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of INR 14,37,910/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, as argued by the assessee. The assessee contended that the cash deposits were fully sourced from prior cash withdrawals from the same bank account, and the lower authorities failed to point out any specific expenditure or alternate utilization of withdrawn cash. The revenue contended that the assessee failed to establish a direct nexus between withdrawals and re-deposits, justifying the addition under Section 69A. 3. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B, which was allegedly non-speaking and lacked reasons for the addition under Section 69A, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record any specific argument on this ground. 4. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC(1) of the Act, as argued by the assessee, who claimed it was bad in law ab initio. The revenue did not record any specific argument on this ground.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 274,Section 271AAC(1)

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 23/12/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 23/03/2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144Bof 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.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the c

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 →