JITENDRAKUMAR AMBELAL PATEL,NAVSARI V. ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

ITA 660/SRT/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2009-2010. The primary issues in the appeal were the validity of the reopening of the assessment under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the addition of Rs. 46,05,680 as unexplained investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment based on a Tax Evasion Petition and other credible information, leading to the addition of the said amount, which was contested by the assessee. The tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the assessee had left vital aspects unexplored and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786132 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J.K. CHANDNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: P M JAGASHETH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Fair market value; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 148; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 660/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 JitendrakumarAmbelal Patel 52, Kanbiwad. At & Po-Pananj, Tal-Chikhli, Navsari-396521 Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Room no. 108, Swapnalok Soc., Near Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari - 396521 PAN NO. BNCPP 7509 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Revenue by : Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2009-2010, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in reopening assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Printed from counselvise.com Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 46,05,680/ on account of purchase of immovable unexplained and treated alleged unexplained investment. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer I.T.Act, 1961. 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before the appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee his main source of income year, the assessee Village, Tahsil ‘Chikhli Rs. 2,11,000/-. However, the ld. Assessing Officer fair market value of the said land at Rs. 4,51,000/ i.e. area unit prevailed locally) agreement to sale in local language) another buyer. Accordingly, he made the addition of Rs. 46,05,680/- by applying the above rates as under: Total Area of Land Purchased: 10.68 bigha*4,51,000/ Purchase Consideration as per Registered Deed Difference added as income of the assessee 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) appellant accepted the purchase of only one part of land having S. No. 197 acknowledged the document number 1625 for another part of the Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 46,05,680/ on account of purchase of immovable property remained unexplained and treated alleged unexplained investment. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in levying Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual and his main source of income as agricultural income. During the year, the assessee purchased agricultural Land at Chikhli’, District ‘Navsari’ (Gujrat) at total However, the ld. Assessing Officer considered the alue of the said land at Rs. 4,51,000/- i.e. area unit prevailed locally) based on the “Satakhat to sale in local language) between the same buyer. Accordingly, he made the addition of Rs. by applying the above rates as under:- Total Area of Land Purchased: 10.68 bigha*4,51,000/- per bigha : ation as per Registered Deed : 2,11,000 Difference added as income of the assessee : 46,05,680 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant accepted the purchase of only one part of No. 197, vide document number 1626 and even acknowledged the document number 1625 for another part of the ITA No. 660/SRT/2025 2 Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 46,05,680/- property remained unexplained and treated alleged unexplained investment. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of in levying Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any or in the course of the hearing of and has shown gricultural income. During the gricultural Land at ‘Pananj’ ’ (Gujrat) at total price of considered the - per ‘bigha’ ( Satakhat” ( i.e. same seller and buyer. Accordingly, he made the addition of Rs. : 48,16,680 : 2,11,000 : 46,05,680 observed that the appellant accepted the purchase of only one part of out of total vide document number 1626 and even acknowledged the document number 1625 for another part of the Printed from counselvise.com above land being executed in name of other party i.e. Shri Vallabhbhai C. Patel. Accordingly, as per the observation of the ld. Assessing Officer, the Urmilaben Ajitbhai Desai has executed sale deed of one piece 10.68 bighas of land vide document no. CKL/1626/2008 in favour of appellant at the document sale price of Rs. 2,11,000/ though the seller, as per through person namely Jayesh I. Desai at Rs. 99,22,000/ payment at Rs. 4,51,000/ the appeal of the assessee for want of proper evidences and justification by the appellant. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submissions filed with the ld. CIT(A) which are reproduced in the CIT(A)’s order. He argued on the validity of merits and requested 5. On contrary, the ld. D for the Revenue argued that the ld. CIT(A) has extensively dealt with the validity of reopening of the case and has rightly dismissed the ground in that regard. Further, apropos the case, the assessee had as to why the fair market value should not be adopted in his case and has not even furnished any s evidences, which could buyer and the sanctity of the written Submission and sustained. Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel above land being executed in name of other party i.e. Shri Vallabhbhai C. Patel. Accordingly, as per the observation of the ld. Assessing Officer, the seller of land Smt. Ur Urmilaben Ajitbhai Desai has executed sale deed of one piece 10.68 bighas of land vide document no. CKL/1626/2008 in favour of appellant at the document sale price of Rs. 2,11,000/ though the seller, as per “Satakhat” sold two pieces of land through person namely Jayesh I. Desai at Rs. 99,22,000/ payment at Rs. 4,51,000/- per bigha. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of proper evidences and justification by the appellant. , the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to his submissions filed with the ld. CIT(A) which are reproduced in the CIT(A)’s order. He argued on the validity of the reopening and on requested for deleting the addition. 5. On contrary, the ld. Departmental Representative appearing evenue argued that the ld. CIT(A) has extensively dealt with the validity of reopening of the case and has rightly dismissed the ground in that regard. Further, apropos the case, the assessee had not furnished any justification at all as to why the fair market value should not be adopted in his case not even furnished any supporting documentary , which could disprove the credentials of the original buyer and the sanctity of the “Satakhat”. The ld. DR Submission and prayed that the addition should be ITA No. 660/SRT/2025 3 Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel above land being executed in name of other party i.e. Shri Vallabhbhai C. Patel. Accordingly, as per the observation of the seller of land Smt. Urvashi Alias, Urmilaben Ajitbhai Desai has executed sale deed of one piece 10.68 bighas of land vide document no. CKL/1626/2008 in favour of appellant at the document sale price of Rs. 2,11,000/- sold two pieces of land through person namely Jayesh I. Desai at Rs. 99,22,000/- for a per bigha. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of proper evidences and referred to his submissions filed with the ld. CIT(A) which are reproduced in the the reopening and on presentative appearing evenue argued that the ld. CIT(A) has extensively dealt with the validity of reopening of the case and has rightly dismissed the ground in that regard. Further, apropos, merits of furnished any justification at all as to why the fair market value should not be adopted in his case upporting documentary prove the credentials of the original . The ld. DR has filed his that the addition should be Printed from counselvise.com 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by both sides and have also perused with circumspection the entire material issues arising for determination have been examined in the light of the settled principles of law and the factual matrix obtaining in the case. 6. Ground No. 1 – Validity of Reopening 6.1 As regards Ground No. 1 of the appeal, we find that the Assessing Officer has duly recorded cogent and specific reasons, founded upon tangible material that came to his possession, thereby satisfying the statutory precondition of a belief required under Section 147 of the Income initiation of reassessment proceedings. 6.2 It is now well-settled by a long line of judicial authorities, both domestic and international, that at the threshold stage of reopening, the test to be app material, but the existence of material which can reasonably form the basis of the requisite belief of escapement of income. It is equally trite that the formation of belief must be that of the Assessing Officer himself, a mechanical exercise. 6.3 In the present case, the record does not disclose any element of non-application of mind. On the contrary, it is evident that the Assessing Officer acted upon specific and credible Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by both sides and have also perused with circumspection the entire material available on record. The issues arising for determination have been examined in the light of the settled principles of law and the factual matrix obtaining in Validity of Reopening As regards Ground No. 1 of the appeal, we find that the has duly recorded cogent and specific reasons, founded upon tangible material that came to his possession, thereby satisfying the statutory precondition of a equired under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act for the initiation of reassessment proceedings. settled by a long line of judicial authorities, both domestic and international, that at the threshold stage of reopening, the test to be applied is not the sufficiency of the material, but the existence of material which can reasonably form the basis of the requisite belief of escapement of income. It is equally trite that the formation of belief must be that of the Assessing Officer himself, founded on relevant material, and not a mechanical exercise. In the present case, the record does not disclose any application of mind. On the contrary, it is evident that the Assessing Officer acted upon specific and credible ITA No. 660/SRT/2025 4 Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by both sides and have also perused with available on record. The issues arising for determination have been examined in the light of the settled principles of law and the factual matrix obtaining in As regards Ground No. 1 of the appeal, we find that the Ld. has duly recorded cogent and specific reasons, founded upon tangible material that came to his possession, thereby satisfying the statutory precondition of a prima facie tax Act for the settled by a long line of judicial authorities, both domestic and international, that at the threshold stage of lied is not the sufficiency of the material, but the existence of material which can reasonably form the basis of the requisite belief of escapement of income. It is equally trite that the formation of belief must be that of the founded on relevant material, and not In the present case, the record does not disclose any application of mind. On the contrary, it is evident that the Assessing Officer acted upon specific and credible Printed from counselvise.com information received through the departmental channel in the form of a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP), processed and corroborated by the Investigation Wing. Such information, in our considered opinion, constitutes tangible material sufficient to trigger the jurisdictional satisfaction envisaged under Section 147. 6.4 We, therefore, find no infirmity in the reopening of the assessment. Accordingly, dismissed. 7. Ground No. 2 – Addition of Transaction 7.1 Turning now to Ground No. 2, which pertains to the addition of ₹46,05,680/ carefully examined the documentary evidence and the reasoning of the authorities below. 7.2 The facts, as discernible from the record, reveal that a parcel of land admeasuring 21.36 bighas (in two equal parts of 10.68 bighas each) was originally agreed to be sold by one Urvashi alias Urmilaben to Shri Jayeshbhai Desai purchaser”) through a 09.05.2007 for a total consideration of ₹4,51,000/- per bigha. Clause 4 of the said stipulates that: Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel n received through the departmental channel in the form of a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP), processed and corroborated by the Investigation Wing. Such information, in our considered opinion, constitutes tangible material sufficient to trigger the al satisfaction envisaged under Section 147. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the reopening of the assessment. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the appeal stands Addition of ₹46,05,680/- in respect of Land rning now to Ground No. 2, which pertains to the 46,05,680/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) carefully examined the documentary evidence and the reasoning of the authorities below. The facts, as discernible from the record, reveal that a parcel of land admeasuring 21.36 bighas (in two equal parts of 10.68 bighas each) was originally agreed to be sold by one Urvashi alias Urmilaben (hereinafter referred to as “the vendor”) i Jayeshbhai Desai (hereinafter referred to as “the prior purchaser”) through a Satakhat (agreement to sell) dated 09.05.2007 for a total consideration of ₹99,22,000/ per bigha. Clause 4 of the said Satakhat ITA No. 660/SRT/2025 5 Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel n received through the departmental channel in the form of a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP), processed and corroborated by the Investigation Wing. Such information, in our considered opinion, constitutes tangible material sufficient to trigger the al satisfaction envisaged under Section 147. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the reopening of the Ground No. 1 of the appeal stands in respect of Land rning now to Ground No. 2, which pertains to the Ld. CIT(A), we have carefully examined the documentary evidence and the reasoning The facts, as discernible from the record, reveal that a parcel of land admeasuring 21.36 bighas (in two equal parts of 10.68 bighas each) was originally agreed to be sold by one Smt. (hereinafter referred to as “the vendor”) (hereinafter referred to as “the prior (agreement to sell) dated 99,22,000/-, i.e., Satakhat expressly Printed from counselvise.com “4. Total sale consideration has been received for the sale of land. The registered sale deed and possession receipt shall be executed at the time as informed by the first party, either in his name or in the name as informed by him, and shall be executed b party.” 7.3 The Ld. Assessing Officer pursuance of the said part of the land (10.68 bighas) was subsequently executed on 23.12.2008 in the name of the assessee for a total consideration of merely ₹2,11,000/ The Assessing Officer inferred the assessee’s name was, in essence, a continuation or culmination of the earlier justifying the application of the higher valuation reflected therein. 7.4 The assessee, however, has contested contending that he was neither a party nor a witness to the said Satakhat; that his purchase was independent and direct from the vendor; and that the price agreed between the vendor and another person cannot be foisted upon him. 7.5 Upon a careful scrutiny of the record, we find that no cogent material has been brought by the assessee acquired the land in continuation of, or under, the said Satakhat. No evidence has been placed to show that the assessee had any privity of contract with the sale deed executed in the assessee’s favour was merely a Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel 4. Total sale consideration has been received for the sale of land. The registered sale deed and possession receipt shall be executed at the time as informed by the first party, either in his name or in the name as informed by him, and shall be executed b Ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that, in pursuance of the said Satakhat, the registered sale deed for one part of the land (10.68 bighas) was subsequently executed on 23.12.2008 in the name of the assessee for a total consideration 2,11,000/-, i.e., at the rate of ₹19,756/ The Assessing Officer inferred that the transaction recorded in the assessee’s name was, in essence, a continuation or culmination of the earlier Satakhat arrangement, thereby justifying the application of the higher valuation reflected therein. The assessee, however, has contested such inference by contending that he was neither a party nor a witness to the said ; that his purchase was independent and direct from the vendor; and that the price agreed between the vendor and another person cannot be foisted upon him. a careful scrutiny of the record, we find that no cogent material has been brought by the Ld. AO to demonstrate that the assessee acquired the land in continuation of, or under, the said . No evidence has been placed to show that the assessee any privity of contract with Shri Jayeshbhai Desai the sale deed executed in the assessee’s favour was merely a ITA No. 660/SRT/2025 6 Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel 4. Total sale consideration has been received for the sale of land. The registered sale deed and possession receipt shall be executed at the time as informed by the first party, either in his name or in the name as informed by him, and shall be executed by the second was of the opinion that, in , the registered sale deed for one part of the land (10.68 bighas) was subsequently executed on 23.12.2008 in the name of the assessee for a total consideration 19,756/- per bigha. that the transaction recorded in the assessee’s name was, in essence, a continuation or arrangement, thereby justifying the application of the higher valuation reflected therein. such inference by contending that he was neither a party nor a witness to the said ; that his purchase was independent and direct from the vendor; and that the price agreed between the vendor and a careful scrutiny of the record, we find that no cogent to demonstrate that the assessee acquired the land in continuation of, or under, the said . No evidence has been placed to show that the assessee Shri Jayeshbhai Desai, or that the sale deed executed in the assessee’s favour was merely a Printed from counselvise.com formal transfer of the prior purchaser’s rights. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has failed to establish how the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed was paid, and to whom, or how it correlated with the amounts alleged to have been received under the Satakhat. 7.6 Equally, the assessee too has not adduced evidence as to the fate of the said cancelled, or subsisting at the time of his purchase. Given that the existence of a prior registered agreement could the title and enforceability of his own purchase, the assessee ought to have obtained clarity from the vendor on the subsistence or termination of the raises a cloud of ambiguity over the true nature transaction. 7.7 In these circumstances, both the Assessing Officer and the assessee have left vital aspects unexplored. The Assessing Officer ought to have examined the vendor and the prior purchaser to ascertain (i) whether the whether full consideration was indeed received under that instrument, and (iii) how the vendor accounted for such consideration in her returns. The omission to undertake these enquiries renders the assessment factually incomplete and l infirm. 7.8 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel formal transfer of the prior purchaser’s rights. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has failed to establish how the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed was paid, and to whom, or how it correlated with the amounts alleged to have been received Equally, the assessee too has not adduced evidence as to the fate of the said Satakhat — whether it was rescinded, cancelled, or subsisting at the time of his purchase. Given that the existence of a prior registered agreement could the title and enforceability of his own purchase, the assessee ought to have obtained clarity from the vendor on the subsistence or termination of the Satakhat. The absence of such explanation raises a cloud of ambiguity over the true nature In these circumstances, both the Assessing Officer and the assessee have left vital aspects unexplored. The Assessing Officer ought to have examined the vendor and the prior purchaser to ascertain (i) whether the Satakhat was actually acted upon, (ii) whether full consideration was indeed received under that instrument, and (iii) how the vendor accounted for such consideration in her returns. The omission to undertake these enquiries renders the assessment factually incomplete and l Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT [ITA No. 525/2014, dated 11.03.2015] ITA No. 660/SRT/2025 7 Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel formal transfer of the prior purchaser’s rights. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has failed to establish how the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed was paid, and to whom, or how it correlated with the amounts alleged to have been received Equally, the assessee too has not adduced evidence as to whether it was rescinded, cancelled, or subsisting at the time of his purchase. Given that have affected the title and enforceability of his own purchase, the assessee ought to have obtained clarity from the vendor on the subsistence . The absence of such explanation raises a cloud of ambiguity over the true nature of the In these circumstances, both the Assessing Officer and the assessee have left vital aspects unexplored. The Assessing Officer ought to have examined the vendor and the prior purchaser to lly acted upon, (ii) whether full consideration was indeed received under that instrument, and (iii) how the vendor accounted for such consideration in her returns. The omission to undertake these enquiries renders the assessment factually incomplete and legally Jansampark Advertising & [ITA No. 525/2014, dated 11.03.2015] Printed from counselvise.com has lucidly held that where the Assessing Officer fails to carry out the necessary inquiry to reach the logical concl CIT(A) and, indeed, the Tribunal, cannot remain passive spectators but are duty subjected to effective verification. The relevant observation of the Court reads as follows: 42. The AO here may have failed t a proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT (Appeals), having noticed want of proper inquiry, could not have closed the chapter simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions made. It was also the obligation of the first appellate authority, as indeed of ITAT, to have ensured that effective inquiry was carried out, particularly in the face of the allegations of the Revenue that the account statements reveal a uniform pattern of cash depo amounts in the respective accounts preceding the transactions in question. This necessitated a detailed scrutiny of the material submitted by the assessee in response to the notice under 148 issued by the AO, as also the material submitted at the stage of appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or causing to be made a \"further inquiry\" in exercise of the power under approach not having been adopted, the impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot be approved or upheld. 7.9 Respectfully following the dictum of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, and considering the apparent gaps in factual e the assessment stage, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore this issue to the file of the for a fresh examination. The Assessing Officer shall make comprehensive inquiries with the vendor, the prior purchaser, Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel has lucidly held that where the Assessing Officer fails to carry out the necessary inquiry to reach the logical conclusion, the and, indeed, the Tribunal, cannot remain passive spectators but are duty-bound to ensure that the matter is subjected to effective verification. The relevant observation of the Court reads as follows: 42. The AO here may have failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT (Appeals), having noticed want of proper inquiry, could not have closed the chapter simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions as also the obligation of the first appellate authority, as indeed of ITAT, to have ensured that effective inquiry was carried out, particularly in the face of the allegations of the Revenue that the account statements reveal a uniform pattern of cash depo amounts in the respective accounts preceding the transactions in question. This necessitated a detailed scrutiny of the material submitted by the assessee in response to the notice under issued by the AO, as also the material submitted at the stage of appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or causing to be made a \"further inquiry\" in exercise of the power under Section 250(4) approach not having been adopted, the impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot be approved or upheld. Respectfully following the dictum of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, and considering the apparent gaps in factual e the assessment stage, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore this issue to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The Assessing Officer shall make comprehensive inquiries with the vendor, the prior purchaser, ITA No. 660/SRT/2025 8 Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel has lucidly held that where the Assessing Officer fails to carry out usion, the Ld. and, indeed, the Tribunal, cannot remain passive bound to ensure that the matter is subjected to effective verification. The relevant observation of the o discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT (Appeals), having noticed want of proper inquiry, could not have closed the chapter simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions as also the obligation of the first appellate authority, as indeed of ITAT, to have ensured that effective inquiry was carried out, particularly in the face of the allegations of the Revenue that the account statements reveal a uniform pattern of cash deposits of equal amounts in the respective accounts preceding the transactions in question. This necessitated a detailed scrutiny of the material submitted by the assessee in response to the notice under Section issued by the AO, as also the material submitted at the stage of appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or causing to be made a Section 250(4). This approach not having been adopted, the impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot be approved or upheld. Respectfully following the dictum of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, and considering the apparent gaps in factual enquiry at the assessment stage, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of Ld. Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The Assessing Officer shall make comprehensive inquiries with the vendor, the prior purchaser, Printed from counselvise.com and the assessee, and ascertain the true character and consideration of the transaction. opportunity of being h before any decision is taken. 7.10 Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. 8. In the result, th statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30/10/2025. Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated: 30/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. (on Tour) Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel and the assessee, and ascertain the true character and consideration of the transaction. We direct that adequate opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the assessee before any decision is taken. Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical , with the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for ounced under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rule Sd/- Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat ITA No. 660/SRT/2025 9 Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel and the assessee, and ascertain the true character and We direct that adequate eard shall be afforded to the assessee Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical , with the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for de e appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rule, 1963 Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "