ADITI THAPAR ,VADODARA V. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 1273/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Aditi Thapar, the appellant, who contested the additions made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The additions included alleged bogus long-term capital gains, unexplained investments in immovable property, and unexplained cash payments. The CIT(Appeals) upheld these additions, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions and evidence, leading to a decision to remand the case for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783767 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC), CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT v. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESHWAR P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Salary income; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 271(1)(c); 68; 69; 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1273/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aditi Thapar, A-201, Pearl Gateway, Opp. Baroda School, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390007 Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara [PAN No.BENPK7623H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent by: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.11.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 44,68,850/- u/s 68 of the Act ignoring submission and documentary evidence. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition ignoring fact that the material relied on by AO was not provided and thus violated the principle of natural justice. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1273/Ahd/2025 Aditi Thapar vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 2– 4. Both lower authorities erred in law and on facts in passing orders without providing statement of the person relied on and consequent cross examination. 5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 51,31,150/- u/s 69C of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant. 6. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.7,16,500/- u/s 69A of the Act. 7. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, rent, long-term capital gains and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 11,73,430/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the following additions - (i) an addition of Rs. 44,68,850/- under section 68 of the Act on account of alleged bogus long-term capital gains on sale of 9,300 shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd.; (ii) an addition of Rs. 51,31,150/- under section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment in immovable residential property; and (iii) an addition of Rs. 7,16,500/- under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash payments towards credit card accounts. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. were purchased online through a recognized broker, M/s. Vijay Bhagwandas & Co., a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange, and that the transactions were genuine, duly supported by contract notes, demat statements, and bank records showing that the purchase and sale consideration were routed through banking channels. The assessee also Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1273/Ahd/2025 Aditi Thapar vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 3– submitted that the shares were sold through another recognized broker, M/s. Anand Rathi Securities Ltd., on which Securities Transaction Tax (STT) had been paid. The assessee contended that no there is no evidence on record to prove that the transactions were bogus, and that mere reference to certain general statements of third parties could not justify denial of exemption on the genuine capital gains. Regarding the investment in immovable property, the assessee submitted that the investment was made from borrowed funds which were received by the assessee from agriculturist lenders, and in support thereof, she furnished confirmation letters, copies of bank accounts, identity proofs, and income- tax returns of the lenders. With regard to cash payments towards credit card dues, the assessee submitted that the payments were made from rent receipts, agricultural income, and trading business, all of which were disclosed and offered to tax. The Assessing Officer, however, disregarded the submissions and evidences and made the above additions treating the transactions as unexplained and non-genuine. 4. In appeal, the learned CIT(Appeals) examined the assessment order and submissions filed by the assessee but confirmed all three additions. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee failed to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer that the share transactions were sham and not supported by any direct rebuttal or cogent evidence. On the issue of investment in immovable property, the CIT(Appeals) held that the existence of balances in the lenders’ accounts was not sufficient to prove their creditworthiness, and that the entire transaction appeared questionable. As regards cash Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1273/Ahd/2025 Aditi Thapar vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 4– payments towards credit card dues, the CIT(Appeals) found that the invoice relied upon by the assessee to substantiate agricultural income was not in her name and therefore the explanation was not acceptable. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in totality. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the CIT(Appeals) has been passed without properly considering the written submissions, supporting documents, and evidences furnished by the assessee. It was contended that the order is non-speaking, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice, and therefore prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for denovo consideration in the interest of justice. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going through the records, we are of the considered view that CIT(Appeals) has not analyzed in detail the submissions of the assessee. We are of the considered view that CIT(Appeals) should have passed a speaking order taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee and giving observations on the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) has held that it is the duty of the appellate authority to correct errors in the orders of lower authorities and, if necessary, remit the matter for proper adjudication so that substantial justice is done. Similarly, in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC), the Apex Court held that the powers Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1273/Ahd/2025 Aditi Thapar vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 5– of the appellate authority are co-extensive with that of the Assessing Officer and include the power to set aside an assessment and direct a fresh adjudication. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) further observed that where the order is passed without proper inquiry or without considering relevant material, the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration. In the present case, the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) is cryptic and does not reflect due consideration of the material placed on record. There is no discussion on the evidences filed by the assessee in support of her claims, nor any independent reasoning provided to sustain or reject them. The absence of such findings renders the order non-speaking and violative of the principles of natural justice as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), which held that every judicial or quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons reflecting proper application of mind. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to his file for de-novo consideration. The CIT(Appeals) shall consider afresh all the submissions, evidences, and documents furnished by the assessee, grant adequate opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all relevant evidences in support of her contentions. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1273/Ahd/2025 Aditi Thapar vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 6– 7. We make it clear that we have not made any observations regarding the veracity of submissions of the assessee or the evidence sought to be relied upon the assessee, which shall be examined afresh by CIT(Appeals) and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with Law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de- novo adjudication in the interest of justice. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 06/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 06/11/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 06.11.2025 (Hon’ble Member dictated on his dragon software) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 06.11.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .11.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 06.11.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 06.11.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 06.11.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………… 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "