ASHOKBHAI KANJIBHAI SA vs. ANI,RAJKOTVS.ITO WARD 2(2)(3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 642/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 October 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, respectfully following its earlier decision in Nitaben Kirtikumar Parekh v. ITO (ITA No. 506/Rjt/2026) rendered on identical facts, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition of Rs. 9,71,000/- to 10% of the amount, which is Rs. 97,100/-. The balance addition of Rs. 8,73,900/- was directed to be deleted. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the sustained addition of Rs. 97,100/- should be taxed under the normal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under section 115BBE, aligning with the basis of the decision relied upon by the assessee. The AO was instructed to recompute the total income and tax liability accordingly. The issue of the entire Rs. 9,71,000/- being taxed under section 115BBE was thus decided in favour of the assessee, with a partial deletion of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashokbhai Kanjibhai Savsani, filed his return of income for AY 2020-21 declaring Rs. 7,09,710/-. The assessment was reopened under section 147 based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding alleged on-money payment for property purchase from Vivan Infraspace LLP. Information was gathered from search proceedings on real estate developers, including the R.K. Group, and data from accounting software "Miracle" detailing unaccounted cash transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged a cash payment of Rs. 9,71,000/- for an office in R.K. World Towers. The assessee admitted the purchase but denied cash payment exceeding the disclosed consideration. The AO treated Rs. 9,71,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 and taxed it under section 115BBE, assessing total income at Rs. 16,08,710/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 9,71,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified, and if so, whether it should be taxed under section 115BBE of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the issue is covered by the Tribunal's decision in Nitaben Kirtikumar Parekh v. ITO (ITA No. 506/Rjt/2026). Based on this precedent, the assessee prayed that the addition of Rs. 9,71,000/- be restricted to 10% thereof (Rs. 97,100/-), with the balance addition of Rs. 8,73,900/- being deleted. The assessee relied on the principle of buying peace and the Tribunal's decision in the cited case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the quantum of addition or the applicability of section 115BBE. The revenue's position was implicitly upheld by the AO and CIT(A) in making and sustaining the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250,Section 132(4)

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 Chetan Agarwal, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 13/10/2026Pronounced: 15/10/2026

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 26.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by assessing officer u/s. 147 of the Act, dated 22.03.2025. 02. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is

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 →