SHRI RAGHUBHAI VIRABHAI BHARWAD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, NAVSARI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the addition for trading profit was not substantiated by evidence, as the assessee never acquired ownership, the agreements were not legally enforceable, and the transaction was cancelled. Similarly, additions for unexplained investments under section 69 were deleted as the jottings represented repayments related to the cancelled land deal and not unexplained investments by the assessee. Consequently, the penalty under section 271B, based on the disputed turnover, was also ordered to be obliterated.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in dairy and estate brokerage, filed an income tax return. Following a survey, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of alleged trading profit from agricultural land sale and unexplained investments under section 69, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed these additions and a subsequent penalty under section 271B.
What were the issues?
Whether additions on account of alleged trading profit and unexplained investment are sustainable without concrete evidence, and consequential penalty under section 271B.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
- These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders, both dated 16.02.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] arising out of assessment framed under section 143(3) and penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2014-15. Since common facts are involved, both appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order. We first adjudicate ITA No. 236/SRT/2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds in ITA No. 236/Srt/2023. “1. On the facts and circumst
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.
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 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
