BHIKHABHAI H PATEL,GANDHINAGAR V. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

ITA 886/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Bhikhabhai H Patel against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the actions of the Assessing Officer regarding the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee contested various additions made to his income, including unexplained investments and money, and argued procedural lapses such as the lack of issuance of notice under section 143(2). The tribunal found that the assessee had not submitted necessary documents or explanations to substantiate his claims at both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer levels, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779319 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UDAY KISHANRAO KAKNE
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAH
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.886/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Bhikhabhai H Patel (Individual), Patel Vas, At: Parsa, Taluko: Mansa, Gandhinagar-382845 Gujarat. [PAN : AMMPP8530 E] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 11.02.2025 relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 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 action of AO reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 886/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2– 3. The reopening of assessment is required to be quashed as same has been barred by limitation. 4. Both lower authorities erred in law and on facts in proceeding with assessment without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and accordingly, order passed is required to be quashed. 5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 3,41,570/- as unexplained investment ignoring fact that payment is through banking channel only. 6. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 32,46,000/-. 7. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- as unexplained money. 8. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- as unexplained investment. 9. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1,67,400/- being stamp duty paid on purchase of property. 10. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,76,948/- as unexplained money. 11. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of loss of Rs. 78941/- under the head house property. 12. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 38,774/- under chapter VIA of the Act. 13. Ld. NFAC erred in confirming action of AO to treat agriculture income of Rs. 4,62,830/- as income from other sources. 14. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified. 15. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act are unjustified. 3. On going through the record, we find that notices under section 250 of the Act were issued on 03.10.2024 and 28.05.2024 requesting the assessee to furnish requisite details/clarifications/explanations Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 886/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 3– regarding the source of cash deposits. In pursuance thereof, the assessee failed to submit any submissions/documents. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. We also find that the assessee even failed to submit any details/supporting evidence to prove the source of the cash deposits even before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarifications/explanations would be furnished before the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting the assessment de novo. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant bank statements/submissions/documents before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 13.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 13.10.2025 MV Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 886/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 4– 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, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "