MAHIPALSINH AMARSINH SOLANKI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 883/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 August 2025AY 2011-12Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was given multiple opportunities to furnish details regarding cash deposits but failed to do so. Despite this failure and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which upheld the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs. 12,72,310/-. The assessee contended that the notice for reopening was bad and the addition was made without proper details or appreciation of evidence. The AO had also not granted sufficient opportunity to submit evidence regarding cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening notice was valid when the amount in reasons and assessment order differed, and whether additions were justified without sufficient evidence and opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.08.2025Pronounced: 25.08.2025

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 21.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Anand/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:

1. The notice issued by the AO u/s 148 to reopen the assessment is bad in law and void ab-initio for the reason that the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded and addition made in the assessment order is different. Further, no details are given in the reasons recorded and the assessment order.

2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in making the addition of Rs. 12,72,310/- to the income of the Assessee without appreciating the Mahipalsinh A Solanki Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– documents and explanations submitted before him at the time of assessment. The Ld. Addl. CIT (Appeal)-2, Chennai has also erred by confirming the additions made by the AO.

3.

The Ld. AO has not granted enough opportunity and time to the applicant to submit necessary evidences to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account.

4. The AO has not given details as to how he has arrived at the amount of Rs. 12,72,310/-as there is no such single transaction of cash deposits in the bank account.

5.

Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

3. On perusal of the record, we find that the assessee was granted various opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate the source of cash deposits. However, despite several notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to submit any submissions or supporting documents. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. We also find that the assessee even failed to submit any details/supporting evidence to prove the source of the cash deposit before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. 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 25.08.2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 25.08.2025 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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →