MADHURIKA DILIPKUMAR SHAH,NADIAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to provide substantiating documents to both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). However, to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained money, unexplained investments, and undisclosed long-term capital gain. The assessee had failed to provide necessary documentation to the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without adequate opportunity to the assessee, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment to provide such an opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Madhurika Dilipkumar Shah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Maitri Bunglows, Ward-1, Ipcowala Marg, Nadiad. NKN Road, Nadiad-387001. [PAN :AVMPS2638 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ankit Parikh, AR Respondent by: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 24.06.2024 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 appeals:
The Appellate order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) is without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and against the principal of natural justice.
The Appellate order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) is one sided with the pre-conceive mind set for the revenue. Madhurika D Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2–
3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by making an addition of Rs.51.76 lacs as unexplained money deposited under Section 69A of the act without knowing the real facts and sources of the deposit of cash by the appellant.
4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by making an addition of Rs.76 lacs as Unexplained Investments under section 69 on account of purchase of immovable property which is actually bought from sales proceeds of immovable property and cash deposited in the bank account during the year under review. 5. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in erred in law and facts by making an addition of Rs.30 lacs on account of undisclosed long-term capital gain which is in reality is a capital loss and not gain.
On going through the record, we find that notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued on 04.01.2021, 09.01.2024, 25.01.2024, 28.03.2024 & 11.06.2024 by the Ld. CIT(A), requesting assessee to furnish a detailed submission to substantiate its claim. Despite sufficient time given, the assessee failed to respond to the above notices and not even submit any substantial documents with regard to the unexplained money. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing officer. We also find that the assessee has failed to furnish reply and supporting evidence even before the Assessing Officer. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment application and consequently prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Having gone through the fact, we hold that the no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de- novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Madhurika D Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3–
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
