DIPALIBEN M. SHAH,VADODARA V. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

ITSSA 103/AHD/2023

AI Insights

This case involves multiple appeals by Dipaliben M. Shah against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad, concerning assessments made under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for various assessment years. The appeals were consolidated due to interconnected issues. The primary contention revolved around additions made to the assessee's income based on alleged unaccounted income and unexplained investments, which the assessee challenged. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the grounds of appeal, the submissions made by the assessee's representative, and the legal provisions applicable, particularly focusing on the evidence presented and the precedents set by earlier cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827417 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2023
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Benefit Tradelink Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALPESH PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH J. SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 10

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 103 & 104/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Dipaliben M. Shah, E/33, Krishnalila Society, Near Bankers Hosptial, Harni Warasia Ring Road, Vadodara-390006 [PAN : AJRPS 7522 B] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Baroda IT(SS)A No. 106 & ITA No. 537/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Dipaliben M. Shah, E/33, Krishnalila Society, Near Bankers Hosptial, Harni Warasia Ring Road, Vadodara-390006 [PAN : AJRPS 7522 B] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Baroda (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish J. Shah, AR Revenue by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavada, Sr DR Date of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : This bunch of four appeals has been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(A)\" for short), all dated 12.05.2023, Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 103/Ahd/2023 Dipaliben M. Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 2– passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], for Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2. Since all these appeals are interconnected and common issues are involved, therefore, we have heard these appeals together and deem it appropriate to dispose of these appeals by this common order. IT(SS)A No. 106/Ahd/2023: AY 2012-13 ITA No. 537/Ahd/2023: AY 2015-16 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that these appeals are not being pressed. In view of the said submission, both the appeals are dismissed as not pressed. IT(SS)A No. 103/Ahd/2023: AY 2009-10 4. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.5,33,322/- in the assessment made u/s.153A despite the fact that, no incriminating material in respect of additions made has been recovered in the search proceeding carried out at the premises of appellant as the so-called incriminating document, which has been relied upon was recovered from the premises of some other searched person. 2. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,24,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/-being alleged unaccounted student fees received by the appellant without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 3. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.2,84,322/- being alleged unexplained investment in property situated at Survey No.143 at village: Bakrol without appreciating facts and law of the case properly.” Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 103/Ahd/2023 Dipaliben M. Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 3– 5. The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 13.11.2014 in Sigma Group of cases which also included the case of the assessee. The assessee is the daughter of the main person Shri Shaileshkumar Shah of the Sigma Group. The assessee during the year under consideration had shown income under the heads - income from salary, income from business & profession and income from other sources. Incriminating material/details of unaccounted transactions related to the appellant and the group were found during the search. Return of Income was filed on 30.08.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 2,11,270/-as against the income declared in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 31.03.2010. The assessment was finalized u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2016 wherein the total income is assessed at Rs. 23,85,270/-by making various additions. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed major additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is now in appeal before us. Ground No.1 8. This issue stands against the assessee in view of the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Benefit Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., reported in 175 taxmann.com 818. Respectfully following the said decision, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 103/Ahd/2023 Dipaliben M. Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 4– Ground No.2 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs.1,24,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- treating the same as unaccounted income of the assessee on the basis of seized material, noting that the amounts represented cash received on new admissions. 10. The Ld. CIT(A), though accepting this factual position, proceeded to treat the amounts as taxable under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The said provisions reads as under: 56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head \"Income from other sources\", if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub- section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head \"Income from other sources\", namely :— ……. ……. 37 [(vi) where any sum of money, the aggregate value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, is received without consideration, by an individual or a Hindu undivided family, in any previous year from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of April, 2006 38[but before the 1st day of October, 2009], the whole of the aggregate value of such sum: Provided that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money received— (a) from any relative; or (b) on the occasion of the marriage of the individual; or (c) under a will or by way of inheritance; or (d) in contemplation of death of the payer; or (e) from any local authority as defined in the Explanation to clause (20) of section 10 ; or (f) from any fund or foundation or university or other educational institution or hospital or other medical institution or any trust or institution referred to in clause (23C) of section 10; or Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 103/Ahd/2023 Dipaliben M. Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 5– (g) from any trust or institution registered under section 12AA. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, \"relative\" means— (i) spouse of the individual; (ii) brother or sister of the individual; (iii) brother or sister of the spouse of the individual; (iv) brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual; (v) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the individual; (vi) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the individual; (vii) spouse of the person referred to in clauses (ii) to (vi);] 11. While the receipt of the amounts is not in dispute, the Assessing Officer has also treated the same as income received from student admissions. It is an undisputed fact that these amounts received from student admissions had already been offered to tax before the Settlement Commission by the entities and the individuals managing the Sigma Group. Since it is established that the amounts have been received by the assessee as student fee and also offered by the Institute before the Settlement Commission, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vi) are not attracted to this case and no additions on merits is also called for. Ground No.3 12. Based on the contributions made by the assessee inequation of the property the Assessing Officer computed an amount of Rs.2,84,322/- as undisclosed income on pro rata basis. Taking into consideration the proportionate contributions, the amount contributed by the assessee is recomputed at Rs.1,42,000/- (rounded off). Accordingly, the addition is restricted to Rs.1,42,000/-. Ground No.3 is partly allowed. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 103/Ahd/2023 Dipaliben M. Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 6– IT(SS)A No. 104/Ahd/2023 : AY 2010-11 13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.10,67,972/- in the assessment made u/s.153A despite the fact that, no incriminating material in respect of additions made has been recovered in the search proceeding carried out at the premises of appellant as the so-called incriminating document, which has been relied upon was recovered from the premises of some other searched person. 2. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.10,97,880/- to the returned income of the appellant in the assessment made u/s.153A despite the fact that no incriminating material qua the aforesaid additions were recovered in the search proceedings carried out at the premises of appellant. 3. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.10,67,972/- being alleged unexplained pertaining to land situated at village: Hanumanpura without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. investment 4. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- being alleged investment in residential unit viz. Krishna Leela Society without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 5. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.85,000/- being alleged unexplained unsecured loan purported to be received from Mr. Manish B. Shah without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 6. The Learned C.L.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.2,61,761/- being alleged unexplained investment in the firm Deesa Overseas without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 7. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,51,119/- being alleged unaccounted business profit without appreciating facts and law of the case properly.” Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 103/Ahd/2023 Dipaliben M. Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 7– Ground Nos.1 & 2 14. The issue raised in the aforesaid grounds stands settled against the assessee in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Benefit Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., reported in 175 taxmann.com 818. Respectfully following the said decision, Ground Nos. 1 &2 raised by the assessee are dismissed. Ground No. 3 15. The seized material reflected purchase of the properties at Village Hanumanpura for Rs.51,00,000/-. The assessee has offered this amount before the Settlement Commission. These facts are not in dispute. Since the amounts have already been offered to tax before the Settlement Commission, we hold that no further addition on account of purchase of the said properties is called for. 16. At the same time, the Ld. DR succinctly pointed out that the amount of Rs.12,71,890/- paid towards stamp duty and other expenses for registration of the land has not been offered to tax. Since this amount has been paid by the father, mother, and brother of the assessee and the assessee has contributed no amount at all, the Revenue is at liberty to take action to bring to tax the amount of Rs.12,71,890/- towards stamp duty and other expenses for registration of the land, which has not been offered to tax before the Settlement Commission. Ground No. 4. 17. This ground pertains to the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged investment in a residential unit at Krishna Leela Society, which has been upheld by the learned CIT(A). The assessee has offered this amount before the Settlement Commission. These facts are not Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 103/Ahd/2023 Dipaliben M. Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 8– in dispute. Since the amounts have already been offered to tax before the Settlement Commission, we hold that no further addition on account of purchase of the said properties is called for. Ground Nos. 5, 6 & 7 Unexplained unsecured loan - Rs.85,000/- Unexplained investment - Rs.2,61,761/- 18. With regard to this addition, Ld. AR submitted that though they are genuine, explainable but due to want of 15 years old documents and keeping in view the smallness of tax, they would like to offer the same to tax. Stands adjudicated. Unaccounted business profit - Rs.1,51,119/- 19. This is a computation mistake in the total income found out by the Revenue. Hence, confirmed. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. In the result, the appeals bearing IT(SS)A No. 106 & ITA No. 537/Ahd/2023 are dismissed, while the appeals bearing IT(SS)Nos. 103 & 104/Ahd/2023 are partly allowed. The order is dictated and pronounced in the open Court today on 08.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 08/01/2026 **btk Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 103/Ahd/2023 Dipaliben M. Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 9– आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy उप/ / / /सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation ……order dictated in the open court on 08.01.2025.. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …….08.01.2026….. 3. Other Member……….08.01.2026………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S ……..08.01.2026….………. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement …08..01.2026…. 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S ……08.01.2026………………. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ….08.01.2026…. 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 "