Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee constructed 10 residential flats, sold 5, and reported Rs. 90 lakhs as sale consideration in the ITR filed under Section 148. The AO made an addition of Rs. 27,05,519/- for unexplained bank deposits and Rs. 4,19,16,000/- under Section 69 for unaccounted investment in flats based on a DVO report that estimated market value. The CIT(A) deleted both additions, finding that the bank deposits were already offered to tax and the DVO's valuation was flawed.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for bank deposits, confirming the amount was part of sale consideration already taxed. It also affirmed the deletion of the Section 69 addition, ruling that the DVO incorrectly estimated market value instead of cost of construction and no fresh investment was made in the current year. The ground concerning DVO reference without rejecting books was dismissed as academic.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions for bank deposits already offered to tax and for unexplained investment in flats where the DVO estimated market value instead of construction cost, and whether a DVO reference is valid without rejecting books of account.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 139(1), Section 148, Section 44AB, Section 69, Section 69B, Section 142A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Year : 2012-13 The ACIT (Inta.Taxa. Shri Chandubhai Raojibhai बनाम/ Race Course Circle Patel v/s. Vadodara – 390 007 42-B, Siddartha, Nepeansea Road Mumbai – 400 036 (Maharashtra) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN:AQVPP 3868 Q (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 18/03/2021 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-2013. 2. The Revenue, in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal: The ACIT (Inta.Taxa.) vs. Shri Chandubhai Raojibhai Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13
1. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,05,519/- made on account of deposits in the bank account by holding that the same has been offered in the return of income filed by the assessee without appreciating the facts that:
1.(i) the assessee has never filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act voluntarily although a duty has been cast on the assessee to file the same as the income earned by the assessee is above the taxable limit.
1.(ii) the assessee has filed the return of income only in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act thereby clearly establishing that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment 1.(iii) the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence whatsoever in support of the Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet as these are the only documents submitted by the assessee along with the return of income in support of his claim for receipt and expenses:
(iv) the Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet, which were relied upon by the CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee, were filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act which cannot be considered as books of account within the meaning of books of account as defined in the Act and especially in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Taj Borewells (291 ITR 232 Madras) wherein it was held that the assessee is duty bound to produce various books of account like cash book, bank book, ledger accounts, bills/vouchers etc., which the assessee has failed to produce before the Assessing Officer.
1.(v) the Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet, which were relied upon by the CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee, have not been audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act although the turnover of the assessee was more than Rs.40 lacs during the assessment year under consideration and the assessee was duty bound to get the accounts audited.
(vi) the books of account relied upon by the CIT(A) shows total receipts of Rs.90 lacs and after claiming expenses, a profit of Rs. 11,66,217/- was offered and no details of the expenses with documentary evidences whatsoever were produced for the expenses claimed to have been incurred for the purpose of business.
1.(vii) the assessee, who is a non-resident, has managed to construct an entire building without being present in India and without even filing any return of income in India for any of the years.
On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,19,16,000/- made u/s 69 of the Act on account of unaccounted investment in flats without appreciating the facts that: The ACIT (Inta.Taxa.) vs. Shri Chandubhai Raojibhai Patel Asst. Year : 2012-13 2.(i) the assessee has never filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act voluntarily although a duty has been cast on the assessee to file the same as the income earned by the assessee is above the taxable limit.
2 (ii) the assessee has filed the return of income only in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act thereby clearly establishing that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment.
(iii) the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence whatsoever in support of the Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet as these are the only documents submitted by the assessee along with the return of income in support of his claim for receipt and expenses.
2.(iv) the Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet, which were relied upon by the CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee, were filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act which cannot be considered as books of account within the meaning of books of account as defined in the Act and especially in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Taj Borewells (291 ITR 232 Madras) wherein it was held that the assessee is duty bound to produce various books of account like cash book, bank book, ledger accounts, bills/vouchers etc., which the assessee has failed to produce before the Assessing Officer.
2.(v) the Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet, which were relied upon by the CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee, have not been audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act although the turnover of the assessee was more than Rs.40 lacs during the assessment year under consideration and the assessee was duty bound to get the accounts audited.
(vi) the books of account relied upon by the CIT(A) shows total receipts of Rs.90 lacs and after claiming expenses, a profit of Rs.11,66,217/- was offered and no details of the expenses with documentary evidences whatsoever were produced for the expenses claimed to have been incurred for the purpose of business.
(vii) the assessee, who is a non-resident, has managed to construct an entire building without being present in India and without even filing any return of income in India for any of the years.
3 On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,19,16,000/- made u/s 69 of the Act on account of unaccounted investment in flats without appreciating the facts that:
3.(i) the assessee has not submitted all the deeds of 10 flats and the office of the