Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
आदेश/O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2020-21.
ITA No.2697Ahd/2025 Asst. Year 2020-21
2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not dealing separately with each grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the notice dated 30.03.2024 u/s.148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Therefore, the issuance of notice is without legal jurisdiction and therefore, void ab initio, since issued in violation of the provisions of section 144B r.w.s 151A of the Act.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by no considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts by failing to acknowledge that the statutory notice issued u/s.148 of the Act contained incorrect details, rendering it legally defective.
4. The learned CIT(A) erred in Law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts by failing to recognise that the approval obtained u/s.151 of the Act is invalid.
5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts by failing to specify in the notice issued u/s 148 of the approval obtained u/s 151 of the Act the basis on which the alleged escapement of income amounting to Rs. 18,51.000 was determined.
6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts by not furnishing the copy of the proposal submitted for obtaining approval from the concerned authority, along with the consequent approval obtained, as required under clause (iii)/(iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 148 of the Act.
7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts by not furnishing the copy of the proposal submitted for obtaining approval from the specified authority, along with the corresponding authenticated approval obtained, as mandated u/s 151 of the Act.
8. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts by not furnishing the copy of prior approval of CBDT obtained by the PCCIT or the PDGIT for transferring the case to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as per the provisions of section 144B(8) of the Act.
Asst. Year 2020-21 3 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on the facts of the case by making the addition for the alleged payment of on-money amounting to Rs. 23,02.000 u/s 69A of the Act by contending that the Appellant is the owner of the alleged unexplained money.
The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on the facts of the case by making the addition of Rs. 23.02.000 u/s 69A of the Act by relying on Whats App chats, loose documents and other seized material.
The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred both in law and on the facts of the case by neither furnishing the complete copies of the statements recorded u/s 132(4) or 131 of the Act during the search proceedings at the premises of PSY Group regarding alleged on-money payments ne providing the opportunity for cross-examination of the deponents.
The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred both in law and on the facts of the case in making the addition of Rs. 23.02,000 u/s 69A of the Act by relying on the information from the Investigation Department regarding alleged on-money payment without making any independent analysis thereon.
The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts by failing to grant credit of tax deducted at source (TDS amounting to Rs. 14,398 and self-assessment tax amounting to Rs. 8,770 claimed by the Appellant in the income tax return.
Your Appellant, therefore, requests Your Honor to delete the unjustified addition u/s 694 of the Act amounting to Rs. 23,02,000 along with the demand of Rs. 29,26,725 along with interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act.
Your Appellant reserves the right to alter, modify, add or delete any ground of appellant 3. As per the information received from the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-2(2), Ahmedabad, during the year under consideration the assessee had purchased two immovable properties i.e., Shop No. 202 and Shop No. 203 in the project “Pramukh Corporate” from the PSY Group for a total sale consideration of Rs. 37,02,000/-. As per the information contained in the Asst. Year 2020-21
4 excel sheet seized during the course of search proceedings, it was alleged that out of the total consideration, a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- was paid through cheque and the balance amount of Rs. 23,02,000/- was paid in cash towards purchase of both the shops. Based on such excel sheet, the Assessing Officer alleged that the assessee had paid aggregate on-money of Rs. 23,02,000/- (Rs. 11,51,000/- for each shop) for the purchase of the said properties and accordingly made an addition of Rs. 23,02,000/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of general search findings without any corroborative evidence. The assessee categorically submitted before the Assessing Officer that the entire consideration for purchase of the shops was paid through proper banking channels and that no on-money payment was made as alleged by the department. In support of the said contention, the assessee placed on record documentary evidences in the form of registered sale deeds (Paper Book Pages 80 to 133) and bank statements (Paper Book Pages 134 to 144). However, the Assessing Officer has merely relied upon certain excel sheets/loose notings seized during the course of search proceedings without bringing any corroborative material on record to establish that any on-money was actually paid by the assessee. No statement recorded by the Investigation Wing has been brought on record wherein the name of the assessee or the shop number purchased by the assessee is referred to. Further, no independent inquiry has been conducted
ITA No.2697Ahd/2025 Asst. Year 2020-21
5 by the Assessing Officer, such as issuance of notice or summons under sections 133(6) or 131 of the Act, to verify the alleged transaction, nor has any cash trail or other evidence been found indicating payment of on- money by the assessee. It is a settled position of law that no addition can be made solely on the basis of notings contained in loose papers, excel sheets or third-party documents unless the same are supported by independent corroborative evidence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial pronouncements:
1. PCIT v. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia – R/Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024 (Gujarat High Court)
PCIT v. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia – IT(SS)A No. 21/Ahd/2021
Meena Chirag Amin v. ACIT – IT(SS)A No. 3/Ahd/2025
Kiritkumar Champaklal Shah v. ITO – ITA No. 1014/Ahd/2023
5. Manoj Harinarayan Agrawal v. ITO – IT(SS)A No. 146/Ahd/2023
Rajesh Narendrakumar Desai v. DCIT – IT(SS)A Nos. 150– 151/Ahd/2023
6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verification of the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to carry out necessary cross-verification and decide the issue afresh in accordance with Asst. Year 2020-21
6 law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15.04.2026 at Ahmedabad.