NEETINKUMAR CHIMANLAL PATEL ,PATAN vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, PATAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1588/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices without seeking adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the appellate order of the CIT(A) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee had failed to provide necessary details and explanations regarding cash deposits to the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's failure to provide explanations for cash deposits warrants setting aside the CIT(A) order and restoration for de novo adjudication, while allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.11.2025Pronounced: 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 21.11.2023 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.

1. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, impugned assessment order so passed by the A.O. Is bad in law, illegal and having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice as well as against the set procedure in law, the same is liable to be quashed.

1.

1. Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the A.O. has grossly erred in making addition of Rs.6,76,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits, when no such addition is warranted. The same may be deleted.

3.

On facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the A.O. has grossly erred in making addition of Rs.25,27,688/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of other credits/deposits, when no such addition is warranted. The same may be deleted.

4. On facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the A.O. has grossly erred in charging tax @60% u/s 115BBE of the Act on alleged deemed income, when there is no such justification in charging such tax. The same may be deleted.

5.

On facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the A.O. has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, when the appellant has not committed any such default. The same may be deleted.

6.

On facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the A.O. has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, when the appellant has not committed any such default. The same may be deleted.

7.

On facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the A.O. has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act, when the appellant has not committed any such default. The same may be deleted.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded five 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. We also find that the assessee remained non-compliant before the Assessing Officer and failed or furnish any documentary Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– 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 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 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 : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 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 →