GIRISH VRAJLAL SONI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1462/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Girish Vrajlal Soni against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs. 11,27,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the sale of gold bars as an undisclosed income based on the suspicion of it being an accommodation entry. The assessee contested that the transaction was genuine, supported by various documents. However, the lower authorities dismissed his claims, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after reviewing the evidence and submissions, ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the lack of incriminating evidence and the thorough documentation provided by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779498 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Mis. Kanak Impex, Mis. N. K. Industries vs. CIT, PCIT vs. Premlata Tekriwal, ACIT vs. Shanti Jain
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHAKAR VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT B. SONI; PRINTED FROM COUNSELVISE.COM
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Wrong claim; Bogus
• Section: 68; 133(6); 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Girish Vrajlal Soni, Shop No. 407, Vrajbhumi Complex, Fuvara Gandhi Road, Ahmedabad-380001 [PAN : ACEPS0008A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kirit B. Soni, AR Respondent by: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 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 12.06.2025 relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Assessing Unit has erred on the fact and in Law treating Actual / Real transaction of Sales of Gold Bar as accommodation Bill, Undisclosed income and making addition to total Income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessing Unit has erred on the fact and in law not treating Actual / Real transaction of Sale of Gold Bar just for want of confirmation to enquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act from customer Viko Enterprise. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1462/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 3. In spite of providing all the required legitimate evidences of sales transaction with Viko Enterprise and not finding any incriminate documents against the assessees, the transaction is treated as accommodation entry. Just relying on the basis of information received from Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Director of Intelligence & Criminal Investigation. 4. The decision provided by Ld CIT(A) in this case is based on judicial pronouncements which are totally different in facts of this case. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating facts of the case and in complete ignorance of submission and explanations, such an act grossly violated principle of natural justice. 6. The assessee craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The Assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Gold Bar and Ornaments. The assessee has sold Gold of 350 Gram to Viko Enterprise on 15/11/2016 vide Invoice No 1/4 dated 15/11/2016. The Payment of Rs 11,27,000/- is received in Bank through RTGS. The assessee has provided Bank Statements, Copy of sales Invoice, Ledger of VIKO ENTERPRISE, Stock Statement to the Assessment Unit. However, based on Enquiry by investigation wing, Ahmedabad with VIKO Enterprise, The transaction is treated as accommodation Entry by the assessment wing. No Incriminate document from VIKO enterprise against Soni Girishkumar Vrajlal was found by the Investigation Wing.Thus, in spite of providing all the required legitimate evidences of sales transaction and not finding any incriminate documents against the assessee, the transaction is treated as accommodation entry. 4. Aggrieved against the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1462/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– “…6. Decision: I have considered the facts of the case, written submission and case laws relied upon by the appellant as against the observations and findings of the AO in the assessment order. The submissions and contentions of the appellant are discussed and decided as under: 6.1 Ground No.1: In this ground the appellant has challenged the addition worth Rs./- 11,27.000u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 1961. The information was received from the Investigation wing that the appellant has taken accommodation entry worth RS. 11.27.000/- The appellant replied to the AO that he has sold gold bar to Mis Vico Enterprises The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, since no reply was filed and hence AO made the addition. 6.1.1 Now before me in the appellate proceedings the appellant has filed written submission. The appellant has stated that the genuine transaction has taken place. It has been further mentioned that the transactions are not bogus. The appellant submitted the bank statement and the ledger of M/s Vico Enterprises. The appellant has hence pleaded that the transactions are genuine. The contention of the appellant cannot be accepted as this is a clear cut case of accommodation entries as per the statements of the persons concerned. Recently Hon. Bombay High Court in the decision of PCIT vs. Mis. Kanak Impex dated 03.03.2025, analysed various decisions of various Courts including decision of Hon. Gujrat High Court in the case of Mis. N. K. Industries vs. CIT and held that estimating a certain percentage on bogus claim is against the principles of Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance was also made on the decision of PCIT vs. Premlata Tekriwal of Calcutta High Court on this issue. Hon. Bombay High Court also relied upon the decision of Hon. Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Shanti Jain. Hon. Bombay High Court in the above mentioned decision held that entire bogus entry has to be disallowed and Hon. Court went against percentage addition. Hence, the addition of the AO is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed…” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had sold gold weighing 350 grams to M/s. Vico Enterprise, having address at 86, Bhagwandas ni Chali, Khokhara, Mehmedabad, Ahmedabad, vide Bill No. 1/4 dated 15.11.2016. The gold was sold at the rate of Rs. 3,188.12 per gram, amounting to Rs. 11,15,842/-. During that period, service tax was applicable, and therefore, 1% Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1462/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 4– service tax amounting to Rs. 11,158/- was charged, aggregating to a total sale consideration of Rs. 11,27,000/-. The assessee furnished all relevant documents substantiating the genuineness of the transaction, including:  Sales Invoice  Bank Statement  Ledger account of VICO Enterprise.  Stock Statement.  Copy of bank 7. We have perused the material available on record and considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. It is observed that the assessee has duly established the genuineness of the transaction. The transactions have been routed through banking channels, and the genuineness has been satisfactorily explained. In the absence of any contrary evidence brought on record by the Revenue, we are of the considered opinion that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 15.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 15.10.2025 MV Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1462/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 5– 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 "