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

ITSSA 108/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by Dipaliben M. Shah against the additions made to her income by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under sections 153A and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues arising from a search assessment. The main contentions revolved around alleged unexplained investments and expenditures that were added to the assessee's income. The Tribunal examined each ground of appeal, considering the legal precedents and the specific circumstances of each addition. The Tribunal's decision reflected a balance between adherence to legal standards and the factual matrix presented by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829972 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ahmedabad
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2023
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. M/s. Benefit Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2025) 175 taxmann.com 818
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Dipaliben M. Shah E/33, Krishnalila Society, Near Bankers Hospital, Harni Warasia Rind Road, Vadodara-390006 PAN: AJRPS7522B (Appellant) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Baroda (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, ARs. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 12-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These three appeals are filed by the Assessee as against the separate appellate orders all dated 12.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 respectively. Since common issue and search assessment is IT(SS)A No: 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 Asst. Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Printed from counselvise.com I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT 2 involved in all these appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. IT(SS)A No. 105/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,72,250/- in the assessment made u/s.153A despite the fact of that, no incriminating material in respect 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.L.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,48,565/- 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 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.51,000/-, being alleged unexplained payment made for the purchase of flat in Paradise City, Palghur (W), Mumbai, without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 4. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,21,250/-being alleged unexplained investment pertaining to land situated at village: Mujpur without appreciating the 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.45,630/-being alleged unexplained traveling expenditure without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 6. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,02,935/-being alleged unexplained bank credit entries without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that Ground No. 1 & 2 on the jurisdiction of assessment u/s. 153A Printed from counselvise.com I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT 3 without seized material is covered against the assessee vide the Third Member decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Benefit Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2025) 175 taxmann.com 818. Recording the same, Ground No. 1 & 2 are hereby dismissed. 4. Regarding Ground No. 3 namely addition of Rs.51,000/- being alleged unexplained payment made for the purchase of flat in Paradise City, Palghur (West), Mumbai. 4.1. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount of Rs.51,000/- is added in the hands of the appellant as unexplained investment, whereas the above payment was made by assessee’s mother Smt. Jyotshnaben Shah which is established on perusal of ledger account of Flat No. C/402, Paradise Tower as maintained in the books of accounts of the assessee’s mother. Whereas Ld. CIT(A) has given benefit for the amount which was reflected in the cash flow account, but has not given any benefit in respect of payment made by Jyotshnaben Shah of Rs. 51,000/- for the purchase of the aforesaid flat. 4.2. Ld. D.R. could not controvent the above fact, when the payment of Rs. 51,000/- was made by assessee’s mother Smt. Jyotshnaben Shah, therefore the addition made on this account is liable to be deleted. 5. Regarding Ground No. 4 addition of Rs.1,21,250/- being alleged unexplained investment pertain to land situated at Mujpur village. Ld. Counsel submitted this investment made in the impugned land Printed from counselvise.com I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT 4 was duly accounted for in the Application Settlement filed before Commission by Sigma Group which is shown as unexplained investment in properties as Serial No. 18 at Page No. 63 of the Settlement Commission order. Therefore the same addition is liable to be deleted in the hands of the assessee. 5.1. Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not controvent the above findings of Settlement Commission order. Thus the addition of Rs.1,21,250/- is hereby deleted. 6. Regarding Ground No. 5 unexplained travelling expenses of Rs.45,630/-. Ld. Counsel not pressed this ground, hence Ground No. 5 is dismissed as not pressed. 7. Ground No. 6 is addition of Rs.1,02,935/- being alleged unexplained bank credit entries. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee explained due to inadvertent error, she could not justify the credit entries in Kotak Mahindra Bank wherein Rs. 1,00,000/- deposit being part of her PIN money given by her husband and the remaining Rs. 1170/- is the Savings bank interest. The Lower Authorities failed to accept the above explanation offered by the assessee thereby confirmed the addition. Considering the background and social status of the assessee and the PIN money received by the assessee from her husband, the above addition of Rs. 1,02,935/- is liable to be deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 105/Ahd/2025 is partly allowed. Printed from counselvise.com I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT 5 IT(SS)A No. 107/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14 9. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.3,21,932/- 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. 2. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.60,174/- being alleged unexplained bank credit entries without appreciating the 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.2,61,761/- being alleged unexplained investment in the firm Deesa Overseas without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 10. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing this appeal. 11. Recording the same, the appeal filed by the assesse in IT(SS)A No. 107/Ahd/2023 is hereby dismissed as Not Pressed. IT(SS)A No. 108/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2014-15 12. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. 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 unexplained unsecured loan purported to be received from Mr. Manish B. Shah without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 2. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,03,163/- being alleged unexplained bank credit entries without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. Printed from counselvise.com I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT 6 3. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.98,585/-, being alleged unexplained payment made for the purchase of flat in Paradise City, Palghur (W), Mumbai, without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 12.1. Regarding Ground No. 1 addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- being alleged unexplained unsecured loan received from her husband Mr. Manish B. Shah . These unsecured loans are there from the Asst. Year 2012-13 onwards borrowed from her husband Mr. Manish B. Shah. Perusal of the Return of Income and Balance Sheet for the A.Y. 2012-13 these unsecured loans are there, therefore the same is liable to be deleted for the present Asst. Year 2014-15. 13. Regarding Ground No. 2 addition of Rs. 1,03,163/- being alleged unexplained bank credit entries. The same is Not Pressed by the assessee, hence Ground No. 2 is dismissed as Not Pressed. 14. Regarding Ground No. 3 addition of Rs. 98,585/- being alleged unexplained payment made for the purchase of flat in Paradise City, Palghur (W), Mumbai. 14.1. Ld. Counsel submitted that neither the assessee nor any person of Sigma Group made alleged payment of Rs.95,585/- and therefore the same was not considered in the cash flow statement submitted before the Settlement Commission by Sigma Group. Once the entire issue related to investment in Paradise Flat was considered by the Settlement Commission and found no fault in the Printed from counselvise.com I.T(SS)A No. 105, 107 & 108/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dipaliben M. Shah vs. DCIT 7 disclosure made by the applicant. No addition can be made in the hands of the assessee for the alleged amount of investment. 14.2. Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not controvent the above submission of the assessee. Thus the addition of Rs. 95,585/- as unexplained payment is hereby deleted. . 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed. 16. In the combined result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12-01-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) True Copy (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 12/01/2026 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 "