MAHENDRA MANILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1308/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 December 2025AY 2012-13Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had multiple opportunities to furnish details to the CIT(A) but failed to do so. However, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's plea for another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs.63,75,000/- made by the AO. The assessee contended that the addition was based solely on a third-party statement without sufficient evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of unexplained cash payment without proper evidence and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri K C Thaker, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.12.2025Pronounced: 12.12.2025

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 10.08.2024 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:

1.

1. 1. 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.63,75,000/- made by the AO based only on third party statement and without any material brought on record to Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– discharge his onus that the appellant has made any such unexplained cash payment.

2. The learned CIT(A) has also erred in law and on facts in not deciding the appeal based on merits considering lack of evidence to justify the addition, by ignoring the specific submissions made in paragraph 4 of the statement of facts thereby wrongly confirming the addition of Rs.63,75,000/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.63,75,000/- 4. It is therefore prayed that the orders of the lower authorities making/upholding the addition of Rs.63,75,000/- may be cancelled.

5.

Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded several opportunities of hearing on 25.01.2021, 20.05.2024, 31.05.2024 & 18.07.2024 to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate the source of cash payment of Rs.63,75,000/-. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before 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 of the assessee. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– statement/submission/document before the Ld.CIT(A) and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12.12.2025.

S Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 12.12.2025 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →