VIRTIBEN PREYASHKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to examine the cash flow statements and other details filed by the assessee after issuing a fresh notice. The assessee is to comply and provide supporting documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's returned income was Rs. 3,76,740, but the Assessing Officer (AO) determined the total income at Rs. 1,23,18,612 due to unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1,19,41,872. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits is warranted and if the lower authorities provided proper opportunity to the assessee to lead evidence. The applicability of Section 69A and Section 115BBE, and the principle of telescoping were also raised.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 10.06.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals) erred in making addition and confirming the said addition respectively by not providing proper opportunity to the Appellant to lead the evidences. It is submitted that the orders passed by the lower authorities are against the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice, the present appeal may please be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
2. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,19,41,872/- to the returned income of the Appellant u/s.69A of the Act on the ground that the said amounts being cash deposited in the Virtiben Preyashkumar Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– bank accounts of the Appellant are unexplained, and hence, the Assessing Officer has correctly added the same to the returned income of the Appellant. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said addition is not warranted and the same be directed to be deleted.
3. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of Rs.1,19,41,872/- by considering the same as addition u/s.69A and upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in charging tax on the same u/s.115BBE of the Act inspite of the fact that there was neither invocation of section 69A nor section 115BBE in the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer. It is submitted that it be so held now and the addition as confirmed by CIT(Appeals) be deleted.
3.1 Without prejudice to the above, even if the addition u/s.69A is confirmed, the Appellant submits that the provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable to the facts of the case, and hence, at the most, the tax as per general provisions of the Act may only be levied.
Without prejudice to any of the earlier grounds, the learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to apply principles of telescoping while assessing the Appellant. It is submitted that there were also withdrawals by the assessee from the bank accounts, which can explain the deposit of the money into the bank account during the entire year, and hence, only net addition of the cash deposited in the bank account can be considered to be unexplained investment of the Appellant. It is submitted that it be so held now and the learned Assessing Officer be directed to compute the net addition only after applying the principle of telescoping.
5. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s.234B for a sum of Rs.30,46,263/-. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the same. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, such interest is not chargeable and the same may please be deleted.
The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal. ”
In this case, the assessment order has been passed by the Income- Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Ahmedabad on 22.12.2019 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1,23,18,612/- against the returned income of Virtiben Preyashkumar Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– Rs.3,76,740/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank accounts amounting to Rs.1,19,41,872/-.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer as the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposits in her bank accounts.
Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the cash flow statements of cash deposits and withdrawals with opening cash in hand of Rs.16,21,126/-. Since the Revenue has not got the opportunity to examine the details filed, the ld. Counsel prayed that the entire details would be submitted before the Assessing Officer who is the primary authority to assess the tax. Hence, in the interest of justice, we direct the AO to examine the details filed by the assessee after issue of notice afresh. The assessee shall comply to the notice and file the documents which he may rely upon.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
