ALPESH SURESHBHAI PATEL,SADHLI V. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

ITA 1290/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Alpesh Sureshbhai Patel, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 59,07,020 to his income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The addition was based on unexplained cash deposits in his bank account, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that these deposits were business receipts from his commission agency for Vodafone SIM cards and recharge coupons. However, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) found insufficient evidence to support this claim, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, considering the submission of new evidence, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to substantiate his claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781468 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Alpesh Sureshbhai Patel Opp Bus Stand, AT & Post-Sadhli, Tal. Sinor, Vadodara-391250, Gujarat PAN: AOHPP8544F (Appellant) Vs The ACIT Circle-3(1), Vadodara (Respondent) Assessee Represented: None Revenue Represented: Shri Abhijit, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 15-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-09-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. ITA No: 1290/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1290/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Alpesh Sureshbhai Patel vs. ACIT 2 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: [1] Under the facts and circumstances Ld CIT Appeal has erred both in law and on facts confirming the addition of Rs.59,07,020/- in total income which is bad in law and without adjusting case records. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Alpesh Sureshhbhai Patel, did not file a return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. As per the AIR information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 59,07,020/- in his bank account with State Bank of India during the financial year 2011-12. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Despite service of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income nor did he furnish any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits. In the absence of compliance on part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of Rs. 59,07,020/- as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the statement of facts, the assessee submitted that he was engaged in the business of commission agency for Vodafone SIM cards and recharge coupons and that the cash deposits was from his business receipts. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking section 144 of the Act and treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained, since the deposits were attributable to business activity and only the net profit element could have been brought to Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1290/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Alpesh Sureshbhai Patel vs. ACIT 3 tax. However, Ld. CIT(A) noted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee responded only once on 07.08.2023 to the notices issued and did not file any further submissions or evidence in response to subsequent notices of hearing. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the material on record, observed that the assessee had in fact made substantial cash deposits of Rs. 59.07 lakh in his bank account and had neither filed any return of income nor any supporting documents to reconcile the deposits with his stated business activities. The claim that the deposits represented business receipts of his commission agency was not accepted by CIT(A) in the absence of any corroborative evidence such as bills, invoices, confirmations, or books of account showing such receipts from sale of SIM cards. Ld. CIT(A) held that the contention of the assessee that only net profit at 1% of turnover should be taxed was also rejected for want of any supporting material having been furnished by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that since the assessee had remained non-compliant during assessment as well as appeal proceedings and had failed to substantiate his claim with evidence, he held that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the cash deposits of Rs. 59,07,020/- as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order and CIT(Appeals) order were passed without any application of mind. The counsel for the assessee submitted bank account statement as Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1290/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Alpesh Sureshbhai Patel vs. ACIT 4 well as sample copies of invoices in support of the contention that the assessee was engaged in the sale of Vodafone SIM Cards. 6. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the material placed on record. In the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be afforded one more opportunity to substantiate his contentions with proper evidences. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity to the assessee to produce all supporting evidences in support of his claim, including but not limited to bank account statements, invoices, confirmations from counterparties, books of account, or any other material that may demonstrate that the cash deposits are relatable to his stated line of business as sale of Vodafone Sim cards. The Assessing Officer shall thereafter decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all requisite details within the time granted. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1290/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Alpesh Sureshbhai Patel vs. ACIT 5 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30-09-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 30/09/2025 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "