RAMESHBHAI PRAJAPATI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide any tangible evidence regarding the assessee's involvement in the purchase of shares that led to the sale of Rs. 1,99,350/-. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed their return of income declaring Rs. 36,25,660/-. The case was reopened under Section 147 based on information regarding bogus share transactions. The sale of shares worth Rs. 1,99,350/- was treated as unexplained investment.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 1,99,350/- on account of unexplained investment in shares is sustainable without tangible evidence from the Revenue, and whether the reopening of the case was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 270A(1),Section 270A(9)(a),Section 210,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLEShri Jaimin Shah, AR Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“01. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred both in law and on facts while rejecting the appeal of the appellant without considering the documents on records and therefore the addition made by A.O. of Rs. 1,99,350/- being unexplained investment required to be deleted.
That the Ld. assessing officer has re-opened the case of the appellant after 4 years without any tangible material on record and hence the re-opening itself is bad in law illegal and required to be quashed.
3. The appellant has furnished all the details and documents regarding capital gain and holding of shares more than 8 years, however without considering the material on records, the NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the basis of assumption. and presumption is not valid in law
and therefore the addition sustained by the CIT(A) of Rs. 1,99,350/- require to be deleted.
That the A.O. has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A(1) and 270A(9)(a) are against the provision of Act, and hence it requires to be drop.
5. That the appellant has neither committed default of Sec. 210 nor made any default in payment of advance tax and therefore unwanted interest charged u/s 234A 234B and 234C requires to be deleted.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of share trading and has filed his return of income on 30.07.2012 for the year under consideration, declaring total income of Rs.36,25,660/-and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Based on the information from DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai regarding bogus share transactions in Diamant Infrastructure Ltd., the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 29/03/2019. Based on investigation findings, sale of shares worth Rs. 1,99,350/- was treated as unexplained investment and added to the income of the assessee and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 38,25,010/- u/s 143(3) of the Act.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition of Rs.1,99,350/- made by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record.
The pertinent facts required for adjudication of the issue are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.36,25,660/-. The said shares of Diamant Infrastructure Ltd. were purchased in 2002 and were sold in 2011. The evidences with regard to sale and purchase were on record. The company DCGP Ltd has shown the assessee as the shareholder in the record filed before the RoC. The assessee was holding shares of 200 vide Folio No. 2691 at Sr. no. 1236 in the shareholders’ list as on 18.08.2002 itself. The said shares have sold in 2011. Further, we find that no tangible evidence regarding the involvement of the assessee way back in the year 2002 with regard to purchase of shares which led to sale of shares of Rs.1,99,350/- (para 3/AO) has been brought on record by the Revenue.
Hence, the addition of Rs.1,99,350/- is hereby deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 18.07.2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
