MAHIPALSINH AMARSINH SOLANKI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 883/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mahipalsinh Amarsinh Solanki, the appellant, contesting an appellate order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the Assessment Year 2011-12. The primary contention was against the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act to reopen the assessment, which the appellant claimed was void ab-initio due to discrepancies in the amounts mentioned and lack of details in the recorded reasons and the assessment order. The appellant also challenged the addition of Rs. 12,72,310 to his income, arguing that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by not appreciating the documents and explanations provided. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately responded to the opportunities provided for clarification and substantiation of the source of cash deposits, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771865 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENKUMAR M VASAVDA
• Assessee Lawyers: S ATISH SOLANKI
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 148

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.883/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mahipalsinh Amarsinh Solanki, 23, Gita Society, Sanand, Ahmedabad-382110. [PAN :CSPPS7644 B] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3) Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Satish Solanki, AR Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.08.2025 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 21.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Anand/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The notice issued by the AO u/s 148 to reopen the assessment is bad in law and void ab-initio for the reason that the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded and addition made in the assessment order is different. Further, no details are given in the reasons recorded and the assessment order. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in making the addition of Rs. 12,72,310/- to the income of the Assessee without appreciating the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 883/Ahd/2025 Mahipalsinh A Solanki Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– documents and explanations submitted before him at the time of assessment. The Ld. Addl. CIT (Appeal)-2, Chennai has also erred by confirming the additions made by the AO. 3. The Ld. AO has not granted enough opportunity and time to the applicant to submit necessary evidences to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account. 4. The AO has not given details as to how he has arrived at the amount of Rs. 12,72,310/-as there is no such single transaction of cash deposits in the bank account. 5. Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. On perusal of the record, we find that the assessee was granted various opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate the source of cash deposits. However, despite several notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to submit any submissions or supporting documents. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 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, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. 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. 883/Ahd/2025 Mahipalsinh A Solanki Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 25.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 25.08.2025 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 "