JITENDRAKUMAR BHIKHABHAI SHRIMALI,MEHSANA vs. ITO WARD 1 , MEHSAANA

ITA 1290/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to fix a date and obtain all details and supporting documents from the assessee to substantiate adequate own/borrowed funds for the payment treated as unexplained expenditure/unsecured loans. If the payment was claimed as an unsecured loan, the assessee was to provide evidence of the nature of the transaction, repayment, and that borrowing and repayment were through proper banking channels, duly confirmed by the other party. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the previous counsel's failure and the need for a proper opportunity to present evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, dated 16.03.2026, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal challenged the sustaining of an assessment order by the Assessing Officer (AO). The dispute involves an addition of Rs. 2,20,50,000/- made under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure and Rs. 4,400/- as undisclosed interest income on an Income Tax refund. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing non-submission of documentary evidence and failure to comply with notices. The assessee, represented by a new counsel, sought to admit additional evidence, explaining that previous counsel's failure and inadequate time led to non-production of documents before the lower authorities. The assessee requested the matter be referred back to the AO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the AO's assessment order by deeming expenses/losses as unexplained income, when the issue of expenses/losses was not involved, making the order unfair and perverse (Ground 1)? 2. Whether the appellate order, passed ex parte, deserves to be set aside and referred back to the AO for a fresh assessment under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Ground 2)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 2,20,50,000/- was made under Section 69C on account of management/professional fees treated as unexplained expenditure due to non-furnishing of details. The assessee claimed that the failure to produce documents was due to the previous counsel's inadequacy and insufficient time provided. Reliance was placed on T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT and Mahavir Prasad Jain vs. CIT for the proposition that an assessee should not be disadvantaged by counsel's mistakes. The assessee prayed for the matter to be remanded to the AO for examining additional evidence. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue defended the actions of the AO and CIT(A), stating they had no option but to make/confirm the addition under Section 69C due to non-compliance by the assessee or their representative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 251,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri Tapas Ram Misra

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshtriya, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR

PER TAPAS RAM MISRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 16.03.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal:

“1. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in

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 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →