DIPALIBEN M. SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 107/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 January 2026AY 2013-147 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal addressed the grounds of appeal for each assessment year. For A.Y. 2011-12, Grounds 1 and 2 concerning the validity of assessment under section 153A without seized material were dismissed, following a Third Member decision in ACIT vs. M/s. Benefit Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Regarding Ground 3 (Rs. 51,000/- flat payment), the Tribunal deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's submission that the payment was made by her mother, Smt. Jyotshnaben Shah, which the Revenue could not controvert. For Ground 4 (Rs. 1,21,250/- land investment), the addition was deleted as it was accounted for in the Settlement Commission's order, a fact the Revenue could not controvert. Ground 5 (Rs. 45,630/- traveling expenditure) was dismissed as not pressed. For Ground 6 (Rs. 1,02,935/- bank credits), the addition was deleted, accepting the assessee's explanation of PIN money from her husband and savings bank interest, considering her background and social status. Consequently, the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 was partly allowed. For A.Y. 2013-14, the entire appeal was dismissed as not pressed. For A.Y. 2014-15, Ground 1 (Rs. 6,00,000/- unsecured loan) was allowed for deletion, as the loans were existing from A.Y. 2012-13 and reflected in the balance sheet. Ground 2 (Rs. 1,03,163/- bank credits) was dismissed as not pressed. For Ground 3 (Rs. 98,585/- flat payment), the addition was deleted, as the assessee argued the payment was not made by her or Sigma Group, and the issue was considered by the Settlement Commission, which the Revenue could not controvert. Thus, the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 was partly allowed. In combined result, all three appeals were partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dipaliben M. Shah, filed three appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad. These appeals pertain to assessment years 2011-12, 2013-14, and 2014-15, arising from assessment orders passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the dispute revolves around additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were upheld by the CIT(A), and subsequently challenged by the assessee. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues and a search assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the additions made under section 153A are valid in the absence of incriminating material recovered during the search proceedings at the assessee's premises, particularly when the relied-upon documents were recovered from a third party? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 153A). - Assessee's contention: Additions are invalid as no incriminating material was found at their premises, and documents relied upon were from other searched persons. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 51,000/- for the purchase of a flat in Paradise City, Mumbai, is justified when the payment was made by the assessee's mother, Smt. Jyotshnaben Shah? (Question of fact, concerning unexplained investment). - Assessee's contention: Payment was made by mother, supported by her ledger account, and CIT(A) failed to provide relief for this specific payment. - Revenue's contention: Could not controvert the fact that the payment was made by the assessee's mother. 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,21,250/- for investment in land at Mujpur village is justified when it was accounted for in the Settlement Commission's order? (Question of fact, concerning unexplained investment). - Assessee's contention: Investment was accounted for in the Settlement Commission's order and shown as unexplained investment in properties. - Revenue's contention: Could not controvert the findings of the Settlement Commission's order. 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 45,630/- for traveling expenditure is justified? (Question of fact, concerning unexplained expenditure). - Assessee's contention: Not pressed. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 5. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,02,935/- for unexplained bank credit entries is justified? (Question of fact, concerning unexplained bank credits). - Assessee's contention: Rs. 1,00,000/- was PIN money from husband and Rs. 1170/- was savings bank interest; lower authorities failed to accept this explanation. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 6. Whether the addition of Rs. 3,21,932/- for A.Y. 2013-14 is valid in the absence of incriminating material? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 153A). - Assessee's contention: Not pressed. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 7. Whether the addition of Rs. 60,174/- for A.Y. 2013-14 for unexplained bank credit entries is justified? (Question of fact, concerning unexplained bank credits). - Assessee's contention: Not pressed. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 8. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,61,761/- for A.Y. 2013-14 for unexplained investment in firm Deesa Overseas is justified? (Question of fact, concerning unexplained investment). - Assessee's contention: Not pressed. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 9. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- for A.Y. 2014-15 for unexplained unsecured loan from Mr. Manish B. Shah is justified? (Question of fact, concerning unexplained unsecured loan). - Assessee's contention: Loans are from A.Y. 2012-13 onwards and are reflected in the Balance Sheet. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 10. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,03,163/- for A.Y. 2014-15 for unexplained bank credit entries is justified? (Question of fact, concerning unexplained bank credits). - Assessee's contention: Not pressed. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 11. Whether the addition of Rs. 98,585/- for A.Y. 2014-15 for unexplained payment for a flat in Paradise City, Mumbai, is justified? (Question of fact, concerning unexplained payment). - Assessee's contention: Neither assessee nor Sigma Group made the payment, and the issue was considered by the Settlement Commission. - Revenue's contention: Could not controvert the submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member

IT(SS)A No: 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 Asst. Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15

Dipaliben M. Shah Deputy E/33, Krishnalila Society, Commissioner of Near Bankers Hospital, Vs Income Tax Harni Warasia Rind Road, Central Circle-2, Vadodara-390006 Baroda PAN: AJRPS7522B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, ARs. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 12-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

These three appeals are filed by the Assessee as against the separate appellate orders all dated 12.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 respectively. Since common issue and search assessment is

I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 2 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT

involved in all these appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order.

IT(SS)A No. 105/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12

2.

The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,72,250/- in the assessment made u/s.153A despite the fact of that, no incriminating material in respect additions made has been recovered in the search proceeding carried out at the premises of appellant as the so-called incriminating document, which has been relied upon was recovered from the premises of some other searched person. 2. The Learned C.L.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,48,565/- to the returned income of the appellant in the assessment made u/s.153A despite the fact that no incriminating material qua the aforesaid additions were recovered in search proceedings carried out at the premises of appellant. 3. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.51,000/-, being alleged unexplained payment made for the purchase of flat in Paradise City, Palghur (W), Mumbai, without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 4. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,21,250/-being alleged unexplained investment pertaining to land situated at village: Mujpur without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 5. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.45,630/-being alleged unexplained traveling expenditure without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 6. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,02,935/-being alleged unexplained bank credit entries without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that Ground No. 1 & 2 on the jurisdiction of assessment u/s. 153A

I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 3 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT

without seized material is covered against the assessee vide the Third Member decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Benefit Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2025) 175 taxmann.com 818. Recording the same, Ground No. 1 & 2 are hereby dismissed.

4.

Regarding Ground No. 3 namely addition of Rs.51,000/- being alleged unexplained payment made for the purchase of flat in Paradise City, Palghur (West), Mumbai.

4.1. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount of Rs.51,000/- is added in the hands of the appellant as unexplained investment, whereas the above payment was made by assessee’s mother Smt. Jyotshnaben Shah which is established on perusal of ledger account of Flat No. C/402, Paradise Tower as maintained in the books of accounts of the assessee’s mother. Whereas Ld. CIT(A) has given benefit for the amount which was reflected in the cash flow account, but has not given any benefit in respect of payment made by Jyotshnaben Shah of Rs. 51,000/- for the purchase of the aforesaid flat.

4.2. Ld. D.R. could not controvent the above fact, when the payment of Rs. 51,000/- was made by assessee’s mother Smt. Jyotshnaben Shah, therefore the addition made on this account is liable to be deleted.

5.

Regarding Ground No. 4 addition of Rs.1,21,250/- being alleged unexplained investment pertain to land situated at Mujpur village. Ld. Counsel submitted this investment made in the impugned land

I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 4 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT

was duly accounted for in the Application Settlement filed before Commission by Sigma Group which is shown as unexplained investment in properties as Serial No. 18 at Page No. 63 of the Settlement Commission order. Therefore the same addition is liable to be deleted in the hands of the assessee.

5.1. Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not controvent the above findings of Settlement Commission order. Thus the addition of Rs.1,21,250/- is hereby deleted.

6.

Regarding Ground No. 5 unexplained travelling expenses of Rs.45,630/-. Ld. Counsel not pressed this ground, hence Ground No. 5 is dismissed as not pressed.

7.

Ground No. 6 is addition of Rs.1,02,935/- being alleged unexplained bank credit entries. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee explained due to inadvertent error, she could not justify the credit entries in Kotak Mahindra Bank wherein Rs. 1,00,000/- deposit being part of her PIN money given by her husband and the remaining Rs. 1170/- is the Savings bank interest. The Lower Authorities failed to accept the above explanation offered by the assessee thereby confirmed the addition. Considering the background and social status of the assessee and the PIN money received by the assessee from her husband, the above addition of Rs. 1,02,935/- is liable to be deleted.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 105/Ahd/2025 is partly allowed.

I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 5 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT

IT(SS)A No. 107/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14

9.

The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.3,21,932/- to the returned income of the appellant in the assessment made u/s.153A despite the fact that no incriminating material qua the aforesaid additions were recovered in the search proceedings carried out at the premises of appellant. 2. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.60,174/- being alleged unexplained bank credit entries without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 3. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.2,61,761/- being alleged unexplained investment in the firm Deesa Overseas without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise.

10.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing this appeal.

11.

Recording the same, the appeal filed by the assesse in IT(SS)A No. 107/Ahd/2023 is hereby dismissed as Not Pressed.

IT(SS)A No. 108/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2014-15

12.

The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- being alleged unexplained unsecured loan purported to be received from Mr. Manish B. Shah without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 2. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,03,163/- being alleged unexplained bank credit entries without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly.

I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 6 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT

3.

The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.98,585/-, being alleged unexplained payment made for the purchase of flat in Paradise City, Palghur (W), Mumbai, without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise.

12.1. Regarding Ground No. 1 addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- being alleged unexplained unsecured loan received from her husband Mr. Manish B. Shah . These unsecured loans are there from the Asst. Year 2012-13 onwards borrowed from her husband Mr. Manish B. Shah. Perusal of the Return of Income and Balance Sheet for the A.Y. 2012-13 these unsecured loans are there, therefore the same is liable to be deleted for the present Asst. Year 2014-15.

13.

Regarding Ground No. 2 addition of Rs. 1,03,163/- being alleged unexplained bank credit entries. The same is Not Pressed by the assessee, hence Ground No. 2 is dismissed as Not Pressed.

14.

Regarding Ground No. 3 addition of Rs. 98,585/- being alleged unexplained payment made for the purchase of flat in Paradise City, Palghur (W), Mumbai.

14.1. Ld. Counsel submitted that neither the assessee nor any person of Sigma Group made alleged payment of Rs.95,585/- and therefore the same was not considered in the cash flow statement submitted before the Settlement Commission by Sigma Group. Once the entire issue related to investment in Paradise Flat was considered by the Settlement Commission and found no fault in the

I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 7 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT

disclosure made by the applicant. No addition can be made in the hands of the assessee for the alleged amount of investment.

14.2. Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not controvent the above submission of the assessee. Thus the addition of Rs. 95,585/- as unexplained payment is hereby deleted. .

15.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed.

16.

In the combined result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12-01-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) True Copy (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 12/01/2026 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →