GOVINDJI GAGAJI DABHI,VASTRAL, AHMEDABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5) AHMEDABAD, INCOME TAX OFFICE, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

ITA 804/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Govindji Gagaji Dabhi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issues in the appeal were the additions made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to unexplained cash deposits during and after the demonetization period, and the incorrect application of tax rates under section 115BBE. The assessee contested the additions and the penalties initiated under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits and thus remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713212 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARGOVIND SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VIDHI V PANDYA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.804/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Govindji Gagaji Dabhi, 759 Khodyarnagar, Vastral Ngarpalika-2, Daskroi, Ahmedabad-382518. [PAN :AYDPD1563 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms Vidhi V Pandya, AR Respondent by: Shri Hargovind Singh , Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 14.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Addition of Rs. 16,71,500/- u/s 69A on the basis of cash deposits during the Demonetization period in the bank account of the Income Tax Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 804/Ahd/2025 Govindji Gagaji Dabhi Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CTT(A) by confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 16,71,500/-on account of cash deposits u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 2 Addition of Rs. 44,27,000/- u/s 69A on the basis of cash deposits (other than Demonetization period) during the Year in the bank account of the Income Tax Act. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) by confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 44,27,000/- on account of cash deposits (other than Demonetization period) u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Addition of Rs. 3,20,092/-u/s 69A on the basis of credit entries (other than cash deposit) in the bank accounts of the Income Tax Act. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) by confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 3,20,092/-on account of credit deposits u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld. AO passed order calculating tax @60% as per section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act: On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in calculating tax @60% as per section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act for AY 2017-18. The tax rate for the AY 2017-18 was 30% as per section 115BBE of the Income tax act. 5. Initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AD has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated. 6. Initiating penalty proceeding u/s 272A[1](d) of the Act. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 804/Ahd/2025 Govindji Gagaji Dabhi Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– 272A(1)(d) of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. I, Govindji Gagaji Dabhi, do hereby declare that what is stated above is true to the best of my information and belief. 3. On going through the record, we find that assessee was accorded sufficient opportunities to submit certain details/clarification/ explanation regarding the source of cash deposits. In pursuance of the same, the assessee failed to submit any submission/documents and accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee based on the material available on record. We also find that the assessee even failed to submit any details/supporting evidence to prove the source of the cash deposit before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo and a cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed on the assessee. The amount should be deposited into “Prime Minister Relief Fund” and the receipt shall be submitted before the JAO, who shall take it on record before passing the order giving effect to the order of the ITAT. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 804/Ahd/2025 Govindji Gagaji Dabhi Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 4– 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 30.07.2025 MV 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 "