ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for both AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 on legal grounds. For AY 2013-14, the assessment order under Section 153A was found to be unsustainable because it was passed ex-parte under Section 144 without proper application of mind and without affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Crucially, the approval under Section 153D was obtained mechanically and without considering the facts, including the filing of the return of income. For AY 2014-15, the assessment order was also held to be bad in law for want of a notice under Section 143(2) after a valid transfer, violation of principles of natural justice, and lack of a legally valid approval under Section 153D. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently objected to the AO's jurisdiction. Since the assessment orders were quashed on legal grounds, the merits of the additions were rendered academic. The ratio decidendi is that assessment orders passed without following principles of natural justice, without proper application of mind by the AO and the approving authority, and without valid statutory approvals are void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 28.09.2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B without awaiting the DVO's report, when such report was statutorily awaited, is not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee's statutory right under Section 50C(2) was violated, as the AO failed to await the DVO's determination and afford the assessee an opportunity to contest the valuation, which is a breach of mandatory procedure and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also held that the subsequent rectification order dated 20.11.2024 under Section 154 is not sustainable as it seeks to alter the assessment based on material not forming part of the original record and cannot be regarded as a "mistake apparent from record." The Tribunal further observed that the CIT(A) erred in upholding both the assessment and rectification orders and in confirming disallowances without proper opportunity, noting that the CIT(A) did not deal with judicial precedents effectively and rejected the assessee's request for further hearing on disallowances. The Tribunal declared the assessment order and rectification order invalid and quashed them. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Regarding the quantum appeal (ITA No. 907/Ahd/2025), the Tribunal noted the assessee's complete non-compliance before the Assessing Officer and the NFAC, despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not escape responsibility by blaming their counsel and that the assessee was negligent. However, considering the circumstances and the assessee's request for an opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, subject to the payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The AO was directed to allow the assessee another opportunity to explain the nature of deposits and transactions with Navkar Impex, allowing the production of additional evidence. The AO was also given liberty to pass an order based on available material if compliance was not made. For the penalty appeal (ITA No. 908/Ahd/2025), since the quantum addition was set aside, the Tribunal also set aside the penalty proceedings to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after completing the set-aside assessment.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for both AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 on legal grounds. For AY 2013-14, the assessment order under Section 153A was found to be unsustainable because it was passed ex-parte under Section 144 without proper application of mind and without affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Crucially, the approval under Section 153D was obtained mechanically and without considering the facts, including the filing of the return of income. For AY 2014-15, the assessment order was also held to be bad in law for want of a notice under Section 143(2) after a valid transfer, violation of principles of natural justice, and lack of a legally valid approval under Section 153D. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently objected to the AO's jurisdiction. Since the assessment orders were quashed on legal grounds, the merits of the additions were rendered academic. The ratio decidendi is that assessment orders passed without following principles of natural justice, without proper application of mind by the AO and the approving authority, and without valid statutory approvals are void ab initio.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based solely on the Directorate of Valuation (DVO)'s valuation report were not justified. The Tribunal noted that mere valuation reports are insufficient to conclude that an assessee has made unexplained investments. It observed that the Revenue failed to lay its hands on any material, despite the search, that exhibited unexplained investment made by the assessee over and above what was stated in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions by following the ITAT's order in the case of Smt. Ilaben Bharat Shah, opining that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of a DVO's report without other incriminating material. The Tribunal also referred to Gujarat High Court judgments in CIT vs. Jayendra N. Shah and CIT vs. Berry Plastics P. Ltd., which emphasized that a DVO's report is an estimation and cannot form the sole basis for additions under Section 69B or Section 69C in the absence of other supporting material. The Tribunal further noted that the difference between the sale deed and the DVO's report was less than 15%, which should be ignored in the absence of corroborative evidence, as held by the J&K High Court in 'Honest Group of Hotels'. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, upheld it, and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based solely on the Directorate of Valuation (DVO)'s valuation report were not justified. The Tribunal noted that mere valuation reports are insufficient to conclude that an assessee has made unexplained investments. It observed that the Revenue failed to lay its hands on any material, despite the search, that exhibited unexplained investment made by the assessee over and above what was stated in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions by following the ITAT's order in the case of Smt. Ilaben Bharat Shah, opining that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of a DVO's report without other incriminating material. The Tribunal also referred to Gujarat High Court judgments in CIT vs. Jayendra N. Shah and CIT vs. Berry Plastics P. Ltd., which emphasized that a DVO's report is an estimation and cannot form the sole basis for additions under Section 69B or Section 69C in the absence of other supporting material. The Tribunal further noted that the difference between the sale deed and the DVO's report was less than 15%, which should be ignored in the absence of corroborative evidence, as held by the J&K High Court in 'Honest Group of Hotels'. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, upheld it, and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based solely on the Directorate of Valuation (DVO)'s valuation report were not justified. The Tribunal noted that mere valuation reports are insufficient to conclude that an assessee has made unexplained investments. It observed that the Revenue failed to lay its hands on any material, despite the search, that exhibited unexplained investment made by the assessee over and above what was stated in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions by following the ITAT's order in the case of Smt. Ilaben Bharat Shah, opining that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of a DVO's report without other incriminating material. The Tribunal also referred to Gujarat High Court judgments in CIT vs. Jayendra N. Shah and CIT vs. Berry Plastics P. Ltd., which emphasized that a DVO's report is an estimation and cannot form the sole basis for additions under Section 69B or Section 69C in the absence of other supporting material. The Tribunal further noted that the difference between the sale deed and the DVO's report was less than 15%, which should be ignored in the absence of corroborative evidence, as held by the J&K High Court in 'Honest Group of Hotels'. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, upheld it, and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based solely on the Directorate of Valuation (DVO)'s valuation report were not justified. The Tribunal noted that mere valuation reports are insufficient to conclude that an assessee has made unexplained investments. It observed that the Revenue failed to lay its hands on any material, despite the search, that exhibited unexplained investment made by the assessee over and above what was stated in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions by following the ITAT's order in the case of Smt. Ilaben Bharat Shah, opining that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of a DVO's report without other incriminating material. The Tribunal also referred to Gujarat High Court judgments in CIT vs. Jayendra N. Shah and CIT vs. Berry Plastics P. Ltd., which emphasized that a DVO's report is an estimation and cannot form the sole basis for additions under Section 69B or Section 69C in the absence of other supporting material. The Tribunal further noted that the difference between the sale deed and the DVO's report was less than 15%, which should be ignored in the absence of corroborative evidence, as held by the J&K High Court in 'Honest Group of Hotels'. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, upheld it, and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based solely on the Directorate of Valuation (DVO)'s valuation report were not justified. The Tribunal noted that mere valuation reports are insufficient to conclude that an assessee has made unexplained investments. It observed that the Revenue failed to lay its hands on any material, despite the search, that exhibited unexplained investment made by the assessee over and above what was stated in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions by following the ITAT's order in the case of Smt. Ilaben Bharat Shah, opining that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of a DVO's report without other incriminating material. The Tribunal also referred to Gujarat High Court judgments in CIT vs. Jayendra N. Shah and CIT vs. Berry Plastics P. Ltd., which emphasized that a DVO's report is an estimation and cannot form the sole basis for additions under Section 69B or Section 69C in the absence of other supporting material. The Tribunal further noted that the difference between the sale deed and the DVO's report was less than 15%, which should be ignored in the absence of corroborative evidence, as held by the J&K High Court in 'Honest Group of Hotels'. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, upheld it, and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based solely on the Directorate of Valuation (DVO)'s valuation report were not justified. The Tribunal noted that mere valuation reports are insufficient to conclude that an assessee has made unexplained investments. It observed that the Revenue failed to lay its hands on any material, despite the search, that exhibited unexplained investment made by the assessee over and above what was stated in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions by following the ITAT's order in the case of Smt. Ilaben Bharat Shah, opining that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of a DVO's report without other incriminating material. The Tribunal also referred to Gujarat High Court judgments in CIT vs. Jayendra N. Shah and CIT vs. Berry Plastics P. Ltd., which emphasized that a DVO's report is an estimation and cannot form the sole basis for additions under Section 69B or Section 69C in the absence of other supporting material. The Tribunal further noted that the difference between the sale deed and the DVO's report was less than 15%, which should be ignored in the absence of corroborative evidence, as held by the J&K High Court in 'Honest Group of Hotels'. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, upheld it, and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that for unabated/completed assessment years, additions under section 153C can only be sustained if they are linked to incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A) had categorically found that except for the Term Sheet concerning land dealings, no seized document supported the additions related to agricultural income, unsecured loans, or delayed PF contributions. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT v. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., which established that no addition can be made without reference to incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any perversity in the CIT(A)'s factual findings or indicate any seized document supporting the impugned additions. Therefore, the additions made under section 68 for unsecured loans and the disallowance of agricultural income for both assessment years were deleted. Similarly, the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for employees' contribution to PF was also deleted for both years, as the issue did not emanate from the search and there was no seized document relating to delayed payment. All additions other than those relating to section 69A were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for unabated/completed assessment years, additions under section 153C can only be sustained if they are linked to incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A) had categorically found that except for the Term Sheet concerning land dealings, no seized document supported the additions related to agricultural income, unsecured loans, or delayed PF contributions. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT v. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., which established that no addition can be made without reference to incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any perversity in the CIT(A)'s factual findings or indicate any seized document supporting the impugned additions. Therefore, the additions made under section 68 for unsecured loans and the disallowance of agricultural income for both assessment years were deleted. Similarly, the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for employees' contribution to PF was also deleted for both years, as the issue did not emanate from the search and there was no seized document relating to delayed payment. All additions other than those relating to section 69A were deleted.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Regarding the quantum appeal (ITA No. 907/Ahd/2025), the Tribunal noted the assessee's complete non-compliance before the Assessing Officer and the NFAC, despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not escape responsibility by blaming their counsel and that the assessee was negligent. However, considering the circumstances and the assessee's request for an opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, subject to the payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The AO was directed to allow the assessee another opportunity to explain the nature of deposits and transactions with Navkar Impex, allowing the production of additional evidence. The AO was also given liberty to pass an order based on available material if compliance was not made. For the penalty appeal (ITA No. 908/Ahd/2025), since the quantum addition was set aside, the Tribunal also set aside the penalty proceedings to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after completing the set-aside assessment.