ABHISHEKBHAI ASHOKBHAI PATEL,KADI vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, MEHSANA

ITA 1803/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 April 2026AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a portion of the cash deposits was explained by earlier withdrawals from the same bank account and another portion by marriage gifts. However, the amounts claimed from agricultural income and family savings were not substantiated with evidence. Therefore, the addition was partly sustained.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to unexplained cash deposits in his bank account. The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained cash deposits and profits from share transactions. The CIT(Appeals) upheld these additions. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits and profits from share transactions are justified, and if the assessee has provided sufficient explanation and evidence for the same.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, AR
For Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.04.2026Pronounced: 09.04.2026

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A), Panaji vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed for A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law as well as facts while considering the facts that appellant was not given proper opportunity of being heard in assessment proceeding and assessment order passed ex-parte and therefore on the basis of facts and law the appellant pray your honour that he should get prop

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 →