FALGUNI RAHUL SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

ITSSA 35/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 December 2025AY 2016-173 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary contention was found to be correct. Since the amounts in question had already been offered to tax, no further addition in the hands of the assessee was warranted. However, to ensure accuracy and prevent double taxation or incorrect interpolation, the Tribunal directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the total amount offered to tax before the Settlement Commission by the assessee's brother-in-law, Shri Ketan Shah. The Assessing Officer was instructed to interpolate the amounts taxed in the hands of the assessee only after due verification. The ratio decidendi is that if an income has already been taxed in the hands of one person, it should not be taxed again in the hands of another, provided proper verification is done by the Assessing Officer. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Falguni Rahul Shah, filed five appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, challenging orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad. These appeals relate to Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The core of the dispute in AY 2012-13, which was representative of all appeals, concerned an addition of Rs. 6,09,240/- made in the assessee's hands. The assessee contended that this amount had already been offered for taxation by her brother-in-law before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The ITAT was presented with a copy of the settlement order and related submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,09,240/- as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee is sustainable, considering that the same amount was offered for taxation by the assessee's brother-in-law before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the addition was erroneous because the amount in question had already been taxed in the hands of her brother-in-law, Shri Ketan Shah, who had filed an application before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. The assessee relied on the settlement order and submissions made before the Settlement Commission as evidence. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the Revenue's side regarding this issue. The Revenue was represented by Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR

Hearing: 18.12.2025Pronounced: 19.12.2025

PER BENCH :- Delay Condoned

These five appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate appellate orders dated 27.06.2024 and 10.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad, relating to the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-

18.

Since the issues involved in all five appeals are identical, we extract the grounds of appeal from IT(SS)A No. 32/Ahd/2025 relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13 for the purpose of adjudication. The outcome of the decision rendered in the said appeal shall apply mutatis Asst. Years : 2012-13 to 2014-15 and 2016-17 to 2017-18 - 2– mutandis to the remaining four appeals pertaining to the respective Assessment Years.

IT(SS)A No. 32/Ahd/2025 for A.Y 2012-13

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad is bad in law and facts.

The honorable CIT(Appeals) (NFAC) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.6,09,240/- as unexplained investment without considering fact of the case that the brother-in-law of appellant has all already offered such amount for taxation and filed application before Hon’ble settlement Commission.

Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.

We have perused the records placed before us. The assessee contended that the additions made in her hands had already been offered to tax before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in the hands of her brother-in-law. In support of this contention, the assessee furnished a copy of the settlement order and relevant submissions made before the Settlement Commission. Primarily, the contention of the assessee is found to be correct. Since the amounts in question have already been offered to tax, no further addition in the hands of the assessee is called for. However, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall verify the total amount offered to tax before the Settlement Commission by the assessee’s brother-in-law, Shri Ketan Shah, and interpolate the amounts taxed in the hands of the assessee Asst. Years : 2012-13 to 2014-15 and 2016-17 to 2017-18 - 3– after due verification. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 19.12.2025. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT () Ahmedabad; Dated 19.12.2025 MV आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →