MADHURIKA DILIPKUMAR SHAH,NADIAD V. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

ITA 224/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Madhurika Dilipkumar Shah against the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary grievances included the lack of adequate opportunity to be heard, perceived bias in the appellate decision, and erroneous additions of unexplained money and investments, as well as undisclosed long-term capital gains. The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to respond to multiple notices from the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, leading to the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's actions. However, the Tribunal decided to remand the case for a de-novo assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the assessee to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314140 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT PARIKH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.224/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Madhurika Dilipkumar Shah, Maitri Bunglows, Ipcowala Marg, NKN Road, Nadiad-387001. [PAN :AVMPS2638 H] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nadiad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ankit Parikh, AR Respondent by: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The Appellate order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) is without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and against the principal of natural justice. 2. The Appellate order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) is one sided with the pre-conceive mind set for the revenue. ITA No. 224/Ahd/2025 Madhurika D Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by making an addition of Rs.51.76 lacs as unexplained money deposited under Section 69A of the act without knowing the real facts and sources of the deposit of cash by the appellant. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by making an addition of Rs.76 lacs as Unexplained Investments under section 69 on account of purchase of immovable property which is actually bought from sales proceeds of immovable property and cash deposited in the bank account during the year under review. 5. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in erred in law and facts by making an addition of Rs.30 lacs on account of undisclosed long-term capital gain which is in reality is a capital loss and not gain. 3. On going through the record, we find that notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued on 04.01.2021, 09.01.2024, 25.01.2024, 28.03.2024 & 11.06.2024 by the Ld. CIT(A), requesting assessee to furnish a detailed submission to substantiate its claim. Despite sufficient time given, the assessee failed to respond to the above notices and not even submit any substantial documents with regard to the unexplained money. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing officer. We also find that the assessee has failed to furnish reply and supporting evidence even before the Assessing Officer. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment application and consequently prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Having gone through the fact, we hold that the no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de- novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. ITA No. 224/Ahd/2025 Madhurika D Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 09.05.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 09.05.2025 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 "