CHETANBHAI SARDARSINH PARMAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 192/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A), finding a violation of the principles of Natural Justice due to the non-consideration of additional evidence and rejoinder. The matter was remitted back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with directions to consider the additional documents and pass a fresh order after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, filed an income tax return for AY 2017-18. During scrutiny assessment, the AO made additions of Rs. 1,66,59,500/- for unexplained cash deposits and Rs. 4,86,45,000/- for unsecured loans under section 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions without properly considering additional evidence filed by the assessee or their rejoinder to the AO's remand report.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions for unexplained cash deposits and unsecured loans were justified, and whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without considering additional evidence and the assessee's rejoinder, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

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

Assessee Represented: Shri Suresh Gandhi, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 19-02-2026 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 29-11-2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:

1.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,66,59,500/- made by the AO on account of cash deposited in the bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank treating the same as unexplained money, merely on surmises and conjecture, without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case and submission filed. In view of the facts and in law, the impugned addition of Rs.1,66,59,500/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account requires to be deleted.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,86,45,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act made by the AO in respect of unsecured loans from various parties, merely on surmises and conjecture, without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case and submission filed. In view of the facts and in law, the impugned addition of Rs. 4,86,45,000/- on account of unsecured loans requires to be deleted. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while failing to consider that the appellant has duly fulfilled all the three (3) ingredients in respect of unsecured loan i.e. identity of the person, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the person while filing all supporting documentary evidences. Under the circumstances, the impugned addition. In view of the facts and in law, the Impugned addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified and therefore deserves to be deleted. 2.2 During the course of remand proceedings, the AO has failed to verify the fresh /additional evidences as can be seen from the copy of the remand report of the AO and without verifying its credibility, the AO has simply mentioned that the fresh / additional evidences may not be allowed. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts while observing that in rebuttal to the remand report of the AO, the appellant has not filed any rejoinder, which is factually wrong. The appellant has duly filed the rebuttal / rejoinder in response to the remand report of the AO which was e-filed on dated 21/06/2024.

3.

Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 on 28-03-2018 declaring total income of Rs.39,460/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment since huge cash deposits made in the bank account of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, assessee given various explanations. The assessing officer considered the same and made addition of Rs.4,86,45,000/- and u/s. 69A of the Act and Rs.1,66,59,500/- u/s. 69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon.

3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee filed additional documents invoking Rule 46A. Ld. CIT(A) called for a Remand Report from the assessing officer. The A.O. vide his letter dated 03-05-2024 submitted his Remand Report. The assessee filed Rejoinder to the Remand Report vide letter dated 21- 06-2024 with e-filing Acknowledgement No. 470841231210624 dated 21-06-2024. However ld.CIT(A) without considering the rejoinder filed by the assessee confirmed the additions made by the assessing officer vide his order dated 29-11-2024. It is seen that the JAO failed to consider the additional documents filed by the assessee rather given his objection and recommending not to entertain to additional documents filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings.

4.

The above facts are not disputed by the Ld. CIT-DR. Therefore in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set- aside the appellate order passed by Lower Authority and remit the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. We further direct the JAO to look into the additional documents filed by the assessee and pass fresh order by giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee and well within the provisions of law.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →