JASHVANTLAL SAKARCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLEJashvantlal Sakarchand Shah, 1350, Khijdavalo Vas, Mithakhali, Ahmedabad-380006. [PAN :BKYPS3918 N]
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the act and issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making huge addition of Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2–
Rs.71,53,300/- is treated as unexplained investment u/s. 68 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not considering and accepting the typical facts of assesse as regards to his capacity of earning the amount.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in ought to have granted deduction of the amount added in case of Shantilal A Mehta of Rs.71,53,300/-.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not considering normally the departmental in respect of bank a/c, normally the departmental has accepted the position of first account holder is the main person of the bank account and accordingly provision of TDS etc. applies to the first name holder and therefore no addition could be made in this case. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiated penalty proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate the source of cash deposits. However, assessee failed to furnish the substantial details or explanations before Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3–
the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal ex parte. At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the primary adjudication of the matter has not been carried out, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents, evidences, and bank details before the Revenue authorities and to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 18.12.2025. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE)
VICE-PRESIDENT
()
Ahmedabad; Dated 18.12.2025
MV
आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.