CHANDRESH VISHANJI PANDIT,RAJKOT vs. DCIT/ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT

ITA 851/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 October 2026AY 2020-218 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chandresh Vishanji Pandit, an individual, is in appeal before the ITAT, Rajkot against the order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the CIT(A). This order confirmed an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 18.03.2025. The AO's action stemmed from a search and seizure operation on R.K. GROUP & OTHERS on 24.08.2021, which yielded digital data from the premises of Shri Girish Vanjani. This data allegedly pertained to the assessee and indicated an unaccounted 'on money' payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the purchase of property in the R.K. Empire project during FY 2019-20. The assessee contended the seized data was irrelevant and unsigned, and requested cross-examination, which was denied by the AO.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of a Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. RC Buildcon/M/s. RC Heights Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 941/RJT/2024). The reasoning was that additions should not be made based on an excel sheet found from a third party's premises, which was neither signed by the purchaser nor the seller, and where the assessee's name was not reflected. The Tribunal emphasized that an opportunity for cross-examination of the third party was mandatory to verify the veracity of such documents. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnachand Chelaram Vs. CIT and Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia (R/Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024). The Tribunal found no change in facts and law and no material from the Revenue to controvert the coordinate bench's findings. Therefore, the addition was deleted on the grounds of violation of natural justice and lack of corroborative evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of action under section 148 of the Act was valid, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's ground of appeal on this matter? 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by the AO, alleging 'on money' payment in cash for property purchase, and confirmed by the CIT(A), is sustainable, and if the addition under section 69 of the Act should be deleted? Assessee's Contentions: The seized digital data, including an excel sheet and ledger, did not contain the assessee's name, was not signed by the assessee or the seller, and pertained to earlier years or other entities. The addition was based solely on third-party data without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The AO failed to reject the audited books of account under section 145(3) and lacked tangible evidence linking the seized documents to the assessee. Revenue's Contentions: The Learned DR for the Revenue reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 145(3),Section 132(4A),Section 153C

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 Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 27/07/2026Pronounced: 07/10/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2020- 21, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 27.05.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act, on 18.03.2025. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in the di

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 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →