SHRI VICKY RAJESH LALWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1811/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was given multiple opportunities but failed to provide substantiating evidence. However, considering the assessee's prayer for a fresh opportunity and in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, where the CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.1,00,43,836/- as unexplained money and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee had failed to furnish necessary details and explanations before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be allowed to be re-adjudicated de novo by the Assessing Officer, given the assessee's failure to provide details earlier.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMARShri Vicky Rajesh Lalwani,

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.11.2025Pronounced: 13.11.2025

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in passing the impugned order, exparte.

1.

1. 1. Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in making an addition of Rs.1,00,43,836/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.

3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in invoking the provisions of S.115BBE of the Act.

4. Alternatively, and without prejudice, the addition may kindly be limited to the peak credit amount.

5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in charging interest u/s.234A/B/C/D.

6. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty u/s.271AAC of the Act which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts of the case.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate the source of cash deposits. 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 as ex-parte. We also find that the assessee remained non-compliant before the Assessing Officer and failed or furnish any documentary evidence in support of cash deposits treated as unexplained money. 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 Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply

4.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 13.11.2025. S /- Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 13.11.2025 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →