CORNER POINT INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA V. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 1811/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Corner Point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The appeals were primarily concerned with additions made under sections 69 and 68 of the Income Tax Act, relating to unexplained investments and unexplained cash deposits, respectively. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in how the valuation report was handled and the lack of proper confrontation of the assessee's books during the assessment. Both parties presented their arguments, with the assessee's representative highlighting the misapplication of parameters in the valuation report and the oversight of substantial evidences regarding the cash deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827396 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M. K. PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 142(1); 68; 145

Judgement Text

"THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Corner Point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 414, Corner Point, B/H Express Hotel, Alkapuri, Jetalpur Road, Vadodara-390007 PAN: AADCC0836G (Appellant) Vs The ACIT, Circle- 1(1)(1) Vadodara (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 16-12-2025 Date of pronouncement : 08-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: These two appeals are filed against the order dated 30- 07-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeals are as under:- ITA No. 1811/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 “(1) That on facts, and in law, and on evidence on record, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the additions made by AO by a non speaking order, without considering the detailed submissions filed by the appellant. (2) That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the 36,93,08,062/- made u/s of addition 69 of ITA Nos. 1811 & 1812/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A Nos. 1811 & 1812/Ahd/2025 Corner Point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 2 the of Act in respect alleged unexplained investment, without rejecting books of accounts u/s 145 of the Act, and only on the basis of report of DVO, which is not tenable in law. (3) That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 66,29,500/- made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposited in bank accounts of appellant. (4) That on facts, record, both the additions ought to have been deleted, as prayed for. (5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” ITA No. 1812/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 “(1) That on facts, and in law, and on evidence on record, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition made by AO by a non speaking order, without considering the detailed submissions filed by the appellant, and by erroneously holding that the appeal is infructuous. (2) That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of 36,93,08,062/- made u/s 69 respect of the Act in alleged unexplained investment, without rejecting books of accounts u/s 145 of the Act, and only on the basis of report of DVO, which is not tenable in law. (3) That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, the addition ought to have been deleted, as prayed for. (4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee is a builder and developer. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of unsecured loans, income from real estate business and sales turnover/receipts. The assessee filed return of income on 07-11-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 39,81,884/- for assessment year 2017-18. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 08-09-2018 and served upon the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on various dates and the assessee filed the submissions along with details. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown gross receipts from revenue operation to Rs. 10,18,48,290/- and other income of Rs. 1,94,20,460/-. The assessee further after claiming Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A Nos. 1811 & 1812/Ahd/2025 Corner Point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 3 expenses of Rs. 11,92,38,122/-, profit was shown at Rs. 20,30,628/- and after adjusting the return of income declared at Rs. 39,81,884/-. To ascertain the investment in projects, the reference was made to DAO dated 14-11-2019 and the DAO has submitted the valuation report considering the various aspects of the construction with expenses/investment. On going the valuation report, the Assessing Officer observed that the valuation of the total project is Rs. 103,20,80,956/- whereas the assessee has shown total investment in profits to Rs. 66,27,72,894/-. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 36,93,08,062/-. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee made unexplained investment in the projects to the tune of Rs. 36,93,08,062/- as per the DVO’s report which is not recorded in a regular books of account and has not been offered any explanation by the assessee. On discrepancy, the same remained as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and made addition to that effect. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 66,29,500/- in various banks during the demonetization period i.e. 09-11-2018 to 30-11-2020. After taking cognizance of the assessee’s details, the Assessing Officer held that the source of these deposits were not supported with any evidences and has not been explained by the assessee therefore added the said amount as unexplained cash deposits u/s. 68 amounting to Rs. 66,29,500/-. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A Nos. 1811 & 1812/Ahd/2025 Corner Point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 4 4. Being Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has pointed out to the Assessing Officer that the DVO has mis-understood the facts of the case of the assessee and has applied inaccurate parameters in his external valuation report which was not comparable. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has requested the Assessing Officer for review of the said DVO’s report but the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer has not allowed the same and made addition of Rs. 36,93,08,062/- as unexplained investment. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of real estate and construction of complexes. The ld. A.R. submitted that the DVO should have taken the assessee’s investment and its valuation which the DVO as well as Assessing Officer has not taken into account. As regards the cash deposited during the demonetization, the assessee has maintained various bank accounts and has given the details of the bills through cheque to the Assessing Officer but that the same was ignored by the Assessing Officer,. 6. The ld. A.R. submitted that the evidence given in respect of cash deposits were not sufficient at the time of assessment proceedings and at this juncture the assessee is having the details of each builder and requested that the same should be taken on record and verified. Thus, the A.R. prayed that the matter may be referred back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues and including that of the assessee’s contention that the DVO has taken the valuation more than the sale price of the units and the cash withdrawals and deposits Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A Nos. 1811 & 1812/Ahd/2025 Corner Point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 5 was not able to co-relate with the documents as the evidences was insufficient at the time of assessment order. 7. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note as regards ground no. 1, the projection of the valuation officer and the price/value mentioned of the properties were not confronted to the assessee. The assessee’s books of accounts were not rejected by the Assessing Officer at any point of time and therefore the difference in the amount of investment that of the DVO’s valuation should have looked into after confronting the DVO’s report to the assessee. Therefore, on this ground it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues after taking cognizance of the assessee’s valuation along with the DVO’s valuation of the project-wise considerations and the investments. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. As regards ground no. 2, since the assessee has not filed the proper evidences either before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A), it will be appropriate to remand back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences and adjudication of the issues thereafter. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Thus, ITA Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A Nos. 1811 & 1812/Ahd/2025 Corner Point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 6 1811/Ahd/2025 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 9. As regards ITA 1812/Ahd/2025, grounds are identical and hence the same is also remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Thus, ITA 1812/Ahd/2025 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 10. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 08-01-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 08/01/2026 a.k. आदेश क\u0006 \u0007\bत ल प अ\u000fे षत / 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 अपील\u0012य अ\u0013धकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "