BANKIM HARILAL KHATRI,BHUJ vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 579/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 October 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue was similar to the one decided in Nitaben Kirtikumar Parekh v. ITO, ITA No. 506/Rjt/2026, where the Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition to 10% of the disclosed income. The Ld. AR for the assessee also submitted that the issue was covered by the said decision. Respectfully following the precedent and considering the similarity of facts, the Tribunal decided to restrict the addition to 10% of Rs. 4,08,400/-. The addition was therefore restricted to Rs. 40,840/-. The Tribunal further directed that this restricted addition shall be taxed under the normal provisions of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Bankim Harilal Khatri, is an individual who did not file his return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. Following a search and seizure action on the Khavada Group, seized material revealed cash payments of Rs. 4,08,400/- made by the assessee to the Khavada Group during the relevant year, as per a ledger account. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 1,78,054/-. The AO treated the cash payments as unexplained money under section 69A and added Rs. 4,08,400/- to the assessee's income. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee has appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 4,08,400/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the NFAC, is justified in law and on facts? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The addition is not justified either in law or on facts and is liable to be deleted. Revenue's contention: The orders of the authorities below are supported, and no interference is called for.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 132,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 05/10/2026Pronounced: 06/10/2026

Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’], dated 13.02.2026, which in turn arises out of an order passed by assessing officer u/s. 147 of the Act, dated 21.03.2025. 02. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an indiv

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 →