INCOME TAX OFFICER , AHMEDABAD vs. KETU MADHUKANT SHETH, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024, and had furnished documentary evidence, including Form-2 (Certificate under Section 92 of the Finance Act, 2024) and Form-3 (Intimation of Payment under Section 92 of the Finance Act, 2024), confirming the determination and payment of tax dues. The Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objections to the withdrawal application. Considering the settlement under the DTVSV Scheme, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal had become academic. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions or the maintainability of the appeal as per the CBDT circulars, as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad, for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The appeal challenged the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions pertained to unexplained investment in shares and unexplained cash credits. The assessee filed a cross-objection, questioning the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circulars and supporting the CIT(A)'s decision on merits. During the hearing, the assessee applied for withdrawal of the appeal, having opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024, and provided supporting documents.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and Circular No. 5/2024, considering the tax effect and the nature of the case? (Question of law) 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.37,79,452/- towards unexplained investment in shares of Vax Housing Finance Co. Ltd.? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.51,30,000/- treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act? (Question of mixed law and fact) 4. Whether the CIT(A) wrongly quashed the reassessment proceedings? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The Revenue's appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, and the case does not fall within the exceptions of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The additions were not related to organized tax evasion. On merits, the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions due to the AO's failure to substantiate share ownership and conduct proper inquiries regarding loans. Revenue's contentions: The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for unexplained investment in shares. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for unexplained cash credits, as the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of lenders. The CIT(A) wrongly quashed reassessment proceedings without considering merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR
ORDER \nPER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:\nThe Revenue has filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner\nof Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as\n“CIT(A)"] dated 16.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, challenging\nthe deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred\nto as “AO"] under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter referred to as “The Act”].\n\n2. The assessee has also filed a cross-objection (CO) challenging the\nmaintainability of the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No.17/2019\ndated 08.08.2019 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and further\nsupporting the CIT(A)'s decision on the merits.\n\n3. The Revenue, in its appeal, challenges the deletion of additions made\nby the AO, contending that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of\nRs.37,79,452/- towards unexplained investment in shares of Vax Housing\nFinance Co. Ltd. (VHFCL), which was allegedly involved in accommodation\nentries. Further, the Revenue disputes the deletion of Rs.51,30,000/- treated\nas unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act, arguing that the\nassessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of lenders. Additionally, the\nRevenue asserts that the CIT(A) wrongly quashed the reassessment\nproceedings without considering the merits of the case.\n\n4. The assessee, in his cross-objection, primarily contends that the\nRevenue's appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the threshold\nprescribed under CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, and the case does not fall\nwithin the exceptions outlined in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The assessee\nfurther argues that the AO's additions were not related to bogus LTCG/STCL\nthrough penny stocks and, therefore, do not qualify as an organized tax\nevation case under the CBDT exceptions. On merits, the assessee asserts that\nthe CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions, as the AO failed to substantiate\nthe assessee's ownership of the shares and did not conduct proper inquiries\nregarding the unsecured loans, making the additions unsustainable.\n\n5. During the course of the hearing before us, the assessee submitted an\napplication requesting withdrawal of the appeal, as he has opted for the\nDirect Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024.\n\n5.
The assessee has furnished the following documentary evidence in\nsupport of his withdrawal request:\n\n* Form-2 (Certificate under Section 92 of the Finance Act, 2024), issued\nby the Designated Authority on 20.01.2025, certifying the\ndetermination of tax dues.\n\n* Form-3 (Intimation of Payment under Section 92 of the Finance Act,\n2024), acknowledging payment of Rs.10,16,626/- on 31.01.2025 and\nconfirming withdrawal of appeal.\n\n* Proof of Withdrawal (submitted electronically on 03.02.2025).\n\n6. The Departmental Representative (DR) has not raised any objections to\nthe withdrawal application filed by the assessee.\n\n7. Considering the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeal under the\nDTVSV Scheme, 2024 and in the absence of any objection from the Revenue,\nthe appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, as the tax liability has been\nsettled under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, making the proceedings academic\nin nature. Assessee's cross-objection is dismissed as infructuous.\n\n8. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed and assessee's cross-\nobjection is dismissed as infructuous.\npronounced in the Open Court on 27th February, 2025 at Ahmedabad.\n\nSd/-\n(T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nSd/-\n(MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nअहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, दिनांक/Dated 27/02/2025\nटी. सी. नायर, व.नि. स. / T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS\n\nआदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/
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 →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026