MAYUR HASMUKHBHAI SOJITRA ,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

ITA 151/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that some documents and evidences filed by the assessee before the AO were self-serving and could not be relied upon entirely. However, considering the smallness of the disputed amount and finding some merit in the assessee's contention for relief, the Tribunal decided against granting complete relief. To protect the interest of the revenue and address inconsistencies in the documents, the Tribunal directed an ad hoc estimated addition. The Tribunal held that a net profit rate of 10% on the disputed amount of Rs. 30,100, amounting to Rs. 3,010, should be adopted. This amount was to be added to the assessee's income at the normal rate of income tax, not under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this adjudication would not serve as a precedent for any other assessment year.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mayur Hasmukhbhai Sojitra, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. The appeal challenged an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 30,100. This addition was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the assessee paid "on-money" in cash towards the purchase of a unit from M/s. R.K Group. The AO reopened the assessment under Section 147 based on information from the Insight portal indicating that the R.K Group had received "on-money" in cash during a search and seizure operation. The assessee denied paying "on-money" and stated no immovable property was purchased.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 30,100/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of alleged "on-money" payment is sustainable in law, turning on the interpretation and application of Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination during the assessment proceedings. The assessee also submitted bank statements and property documents, asserting that no "on-money" was paid and therefore the addition should be deleted. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the Ld. DR, primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 28/07/2026Pronounced: 07/10/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2019-20, 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 (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 18.12.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act, dated 19.03.2024. 2. The solitary grievance of the as

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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →