JAYSHRIBEN BIPINCHANDRA MODI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1102/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jayshriben Bipinchandra Modi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs.11,38,000 to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer, alleging that the sources of the payments made to a builder were not satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal examined the payments made by cheque, which were undisputed, and focused on the cash payment of Rs.3,38,000. The assessee argued that this amount was from legitimate sources, including domestic savings and contributions from family, which the Tribunal accepted, leading to the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783766 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVINDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment
• Section: 271(1)(c); 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1102/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jayshriben Bipinchandra Modi, 290-3, Chhipa Ni Chali, Daxini Society, Khokhra, Ahmedabad-380008. [PAN :AXPPM7113 A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.11.2025 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 19.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the followings grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1102/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– 2. Ld.JCIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO of reopening of Assessment. 3. Ld.JCIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.11,38,000/- by invoking section 69 ignoring submission of the appellant. 4. Both lower authorities erred in proceeding without providing material relied on and consequential cross examination. 5. Both lower authorities ought to have consider the fact that mere declaration before settlement commission by builder/developer without any tangible evidence does not warrants any addition. 6. Charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C, 234D are unjustified. 7. Initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 3. From the records, we find that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.11,38,000/–, being the amount paid by the assessee to the builder of Rs.8,00,000/– by cheque and Rs.3,38,000/– in cash. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the sources of the payments had not been satisfactorily explained. On perusal of the material available before us, it is noted that the assessee had paid Rs.4,00,000/– to Dharamdev Infrastructure Limited vide cheque no. 222361 dated 17.12.2010, and an equivalent amount of Rs.4,00,000/– vide cheque no. 222362 dated 15.01.2011. The sources of these cheque payments are not in dispute, leaving only the cash payment of Rs.3,38,000/– to be examined. Before us, the assessee explained that the said cash payment was made out of domestic savings, the pin money of the wife, and small contributions received from parents and relatives. Considering the absoluteness and diminutive nature of the cash amount involved, and in view of the specific circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1102/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– addition of Rs.3,38,000/– made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and liable to be deleted. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 06.11.2025. S /- Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 06.11.2025 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 "