ROHITKUMAR CHINUBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1961/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 February 2026AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)16 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer as unaccounted sale consideration. It found that the disparity between registered value and market value, coupled with the purchaser's admission, supported the inference of 'on-money' payment.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land for a stated consideration. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on loose papers found during a survey at a purchaser's premises, suggesting a higher cash component was paid than declared. The assessee denied receiving any cash and stated the entire consideration was by cheque.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and if additions based on third-party documents and alleged cash payments were justified without providing full disclosure and cross-examination opportunities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 263,Section 133A,Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, AR
For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.02.2026Pronounced: 20.02.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. Nos.1961/Ahd/2025
I.T.A. Nos.1960/Ahd/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”),

ITA Nos. 1961 & 196

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →