BIRAJ RAJENDRA CHAUHAN,VADODARA V. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

ITA 283/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Biraj Rajendra Chauhan, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,52,41,150 as unexplained cash credits under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appellant had initially failed to provide necessary details to the Assessing Officer due to reasons beyond his control and sought to submit additional evidences at the appellate stage, which was not allowed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found merit in giving the appellant another opportunity to present his case, emphasizing the need for the tax authorities to not punish assessees for bona fide mistakes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787896 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT PRATAP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARDIK VORA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Bonafide mistake

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ “बी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u0014ी संजय गग\u001a, \u0011ाियक सद\u001b एवं \u0014ी नरे !साद िस\"ा, लेखा सद\u001b क े सम%। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.283/Ahd/2025 िनधा \u0010रण वष\u0010 /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Biraj Rajendra Chauhan B-30, Maikrupa Society Undera 2 Gorwa Vadodara 391 330 (Gujarat) बनाम/ v/s. The ACIT Circle-1(1)(2) Vadodara – 390 007 (Gujarat) \u0014थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ABRPT 3224 B (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hardik Vora, AR Revenue by : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 08/01/2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.1,52,41,150/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.283/Ahd/2025 Biraj Rajendra Chauhan vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2017-18 2 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) to submit that the assessee had moved an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before the Ld.CIT(A) for furnishing of additional evidences to prove the sources of the deposits. However, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the said application and did not grant opportunity to the assessee to furnish the additional evidences. The Ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to show that the same was also an ex-parte/ best judgement assessment order passed u/s.144 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel submitted that due to certain reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could not furnish the relevant details before the Assessing Officer (AO), however, the assessee requested the first appellate authority to admit the additional evidences and consider the same. However, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) without granting opportunity to the assessee to furnish the relevant details to prove the sources of the deposits in his bank account. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to furnish the relevant details for the sake of interests of justice. 3. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the AO had given sufficient opportunities to the assessee to furnish the relevant details, however, the assessee failed to submit the details before the AO. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. It has been time and again held that the Income-tax Authorities should charge legitimate taxes from the assessees and that they should not punish the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.283/Ahd/2025 Biraj Rajendra Chauhan vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2017-18 3 assessees for their bonafide mistakes. In this case, the impugned addition has been made by the lower authorities on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the necessary details proving the source of the deposits. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that the impugned additions are not warranted against the assessee, as he can well prove the sources of deposits and the same are not out of any unaccounted income of the assessee. 4.2. In our view, in this case, the interests of justice will be well-served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld.CIT(A) subject to burdening with a reasonable costs of Rs.5,000/-. It is, therefore, directed that the assessee will be deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and furnish the proof of the deposit of the aforesaid amount before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A), after confirming the deposit of costs by the assessee, will proceed to decide the appeal on merits and will give opportunity to the assessee to furnish the relevant details and evidences and thereafter will consider the same. He may call upon a remand report from the AO, if so required, and then will decide the appeal of the assessee on merits by way of a speaking order. 5. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24/11/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 24/11/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.283/Ahd/2025 Biraj Rajendra Chauhan vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2017-18 4 आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. गाड\u0010 फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with file) : 24.11.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 24.11.2025 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 24.11.25 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 24.11.25 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 Despatch of the Order : Printed from counselvise.com "