SHANTABEN JOITARAM PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2) (OLD WARD-5(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1029/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 February 2026AY 2012-13Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Jurisdictional A.O. with a direction to pass a fresh order on merits after considering the documents and details to be filed by the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-filing of the return.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a retired 76-year-old widow, sold an old house and purchased a new one for Rs. 42,00,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13. Not having filed an ITR, her assessment was reopened under section 148, and an addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- was made by the A.O. as undisclosed investment, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- as undisclosed investment was justified without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of funds for the property purchase.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Assessee Represented: Shri M S Chhajed, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 18-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 20-02-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER: T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against appellate order dated 11-03-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the exparte reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a retired Teacher aged about 76 years old. The assessee is a widow and her sons and daughter migrated to Canada in 2004 and was staying in India alone till 2012. Since assessee being a retired person and no taxable income not filed the Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2012-13. During the Financial Year 2011-12, the assessee sold out her old house and purchased a new house for a consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- Since the assessee has not filed the Return of Income and made investment in immovable property of Rs.42,00,000/-, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act.

2.1. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee produced documents to the extent of Rs. 28,00,000/- for the purchase of immovable property, therefore the A.O. made addition on the balance amount Rs.14,00,000/- as undisclosed investment.

3.

Aggrieved against the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein additional documents were filed Ld. CIT(A) called for Remand Report from the A.O. and confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer.

4.

Aggrieved against the appellate order, assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:

1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the law, equity and principle of natural justice.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made of Rs.14,00,000/- by Ld. A.O.

3. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.

5.

Ld. Counsel submitted referring to Dena Bank account of the assessee wherein sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- received by the assessee on 28-01-2011 and 22-02- 2011 on sale of old house and claimed that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to explain the details before the Ld. A.O. Similarly the source of assessee’s son, Axis Bank account is required to be explained before the assessing officer and relied upon the Bank Statements as well as the unregistered Sale Deed.

6.

Considering the submission of the assessee and non-filing of the return, we hereby impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Department within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order and produce the cost payment challan to the JAO. Thus the orders passed by the Lower Authorities are hereby set-aside with the direction to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass order on merits after considering the documents and details to be filed by the assessee. Needless to say the assessee should make use of this final opportunity of hearing and cooperate with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for passing order on merits of the case.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →