RANJANBEN HASMUKHBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. WARD 1(2)(2), INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2171/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 April 2025AY 2011-12Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T. R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with notices and provide documentation. However, to ensure no prejudice to revenue, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present details and explanations.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the appellate order that confirmed additions to income. The assessee had failed to provide explanations and documents regarding cash deposits and unexplained investments to the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without proper justification and whether the matter should be remanded for a de-novo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI T. R SENTHIL KUMAR

Hearing: 23.04.2025Pronounced: 25.04.2025

आदेश/ORDER PER : DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:

Delay Condoned

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 14.10.2024 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 appeal:

A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2

Incorrect Assessment of Income: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 93,08,593/- to the income of the Appellant without proper justification and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Addition Based on Estimation: The learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed an addition of Cash Deposit of 22,51,500/- u/s 69A purely based on estimation and assumptions, without any substantive evidence or basis for the same. Addition of unexplained investment. The learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed an addition of deposits as unexplained investments of 70.10.562/-purely based on estimation and assumptions, without any substantive evidence or basis for the same.

Excessive and Arbitrary Levy of Interest and Penalty:

The interest levied under Section 234A, 234B, 234C and the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c), 271F are excessive, arbitrary, and deserve to be deleted.

3.

On going through the record, we find that notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued on 23.02.2021, 07.01.2022, 30.11.2023, 08.01.2024 & 25.01.2024 by the Ld. CIT(A), requesting assessee to furnish written submissions/documents. Despite of sufficient time given, the assessee failed to respond to the above notices and not even submitted any substantial documents with regard to the source of cash deposits in her bank account. We also find that the assessee has not even complied before the Assessing Officer. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee 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 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee with regard to the unexplained investments. 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.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.04.2025

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →