RAJESHBHAI PARSOTTAMDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 429/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed procedural lapses by the lower authorities, noting that the Assessing Officer issued only one notice without confirming service, and the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate time for the assessee to file necessary details. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification, re-adjudication, and to ensure the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing, upholding principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income of Rs. 1,78,830/- for AY 2017-18. During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 12,50,000/- in a bank account, which the Assessing Officer added as undisclosed income under section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 12,50,000/- during demonetization constituted undisclosed income under section 69A, and whether the assessment proceedings adhered to principles of natural justice regarding notice service and opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 69A,Section 271AAC,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER This is an appeal filed against the order dated 04-10- 2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The grounds of appeal

1.

are as under:- “All the grounds of appeal in this appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other.

1.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC ("the CIT(A)"] and the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(2) ("the AO"), Baroda erred in fact and in law in considering deposit of Rs.12,50,000/- as undisclosed income and making addition of the same.

2. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in computing the total income at Rs.14,28,840/- without

3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in making the addition of the gross deposits instead of the net deposits.

4. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act.

5. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act.

6. The Appellant craves the right to add, to alter, to substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of Appeal.”

3.

The assessee filed return of income on 25-07-2017 declaring total income at Rs. 1,78,830/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act issued on 14-08-2018. In response to the notice, assessee submitted the reply and after considering the same, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee deposited 12,50,000/- during the demonetization period in his bank account. The Assessing Officer made addition of 12,50,000/- u/s. 69A on account of undisclosed income.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 56 days, the delay is condoned.

6.

The ld. A.R. further submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee could not file the details before Rajeshbhai Parsottamdas Patel, A.Y. 2017-18 the A.O. as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. A.R. requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication of the issues.

7.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

8.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has issued only one notice and has not stated anywhere in the assessment order that the assessee was served with the notice. Beside this, the assessee was not given adequate time to file the details by the CIT(A). Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying the documents/evidences to be filed before the Assessing Officer and adjudicate the issues as per Income Tax Act. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

9.

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

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →