DARSHAN NARESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOM TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in making the addition as the assessee had clearly denied the transaction and provided evidence of mistaken identity. The AO failed to verify the assessee's contentions by not issuing notices to the relevant parties.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information that the assessee paid Rs. 20,50,000 in cash as 'on money' for a property, which was not disclosed. The assessee denied any such transaction, stating it was a case of mistaken identity and that the documents relied upon by the AO pertained to other individuals.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 69B for alleged 'on money' payment is justified when the assessee denies the transaction and claims mistaken identity, and whether the reopening under Section 147 was based on valid grounds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 12-12- 2019 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2012-13.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
Page No. Darshan Nareshbhai Patel vs. ITO
“1. That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC and AO has grievously erred in not at all considering the submissions and evidences filed, and in dismissing the appeal for unjustified reasons mentioned in para 6.7 and 6.8 of the order under appeal.
2. That on facts, and in law, the learned AO has grievously erred in re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on reasons recorded which are incorrect and erroneous on facts.
3. That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition made u/s 69B of the Act of Rs. 20,50,000/- in respect of alleged 'on money' paid for purchase of property.
The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.”
The assessee filed original return of income on 27-02- 2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,36,740/- for the year under consideration. After receiving the information, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee booked property i.e. Escon Platinum Block J/802 by advancing the amount of Rs. 20,50,000/- in cash during assessment year 2012-13 and the same was not disclosed in particulars of income. Therefore, the case was reopened and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30-03-2019 and served upon the assessee. All the statutory notices were received by the assessee and the assessee filed its reply thereby stating that the assessee has not done any transaction with the JP Escon Group and the Page No. Darshan Nareshbhai Patel vs. ITO assessee was not having any bank account in Allahabad Bank. After taking cognizance of the same, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not reply the show cause notice and therefore made addition of Rs. 20,50,000/- u/s. 69B presuming the same as on money payment done by the assessee.
4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee never had transaction with the JP Escon Group and never had any bank account in Allahabad Bank. The Ld. A.R. further pointed out that in the show cause notice issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, the name reveals that the Varshaven Patel had paid cash and there was no communication in the reasons that the assessee had paid the said cash. As regards the cancellation and the refund of the money, the ld. A.R. pointed out that the assessee has not signed the said copy which was found by the Assessing Officer in the search of Escon Platinum. In fact, the ld. A.R. pointed out the assessment which was produced by the ld. D.R. and stated that the Escon Platinum and the particular flat was also mentioning the Rashmikant Sheth and the booking is done by Page No. Darshan Nareshbhai Patel vs. ITO A Gupta and the assessee’s name was not verified by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A) from the said documents. Thus, the ld. A.R. submitted that the addition itself is not justifiable.
The ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has very well purchased the flat and relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and Assessment order.
Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is apparent from the perusal of the records and the submissions of the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A) reveals that the assessee has not purchased any property and in fact it is a case of mistaken identity. The Assessing Officer has not taken the cognizance of the assessee’s submission in respect of denial of the said transaction on the part of the assessee when the assessee categorically pointed out that the assessee does not have any account in the said bank. The Assessing Officer has never issued any notice to the said Allahabad Bank as well as to the Escon Group for verifying the contentions of the assessee. The assessee has filed return of income and has revealed all his bank accounts. In fact, the reasons recorded also mentions some other party and the documents found for the assessment record are also some other party name.
Page No. Darshan Nareshbhai Patel vs. ITO Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not justified in making addition in the hands of the assessee in respect of section 69B regarding on money investment in purchase of property/flat. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026