MUKESHBHAI KASHIRAM VAGHARI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 788/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mukeshbhai Kashiram Vaghari against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention revolves around the additions made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act concerning unexplained cash deposits and other financial transactions. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not allowing a virtual hearing despite a specific request and by not considering the written submissions made. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished substantial evidence during the appellate proceedings and allowed the matter to be reassessed by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669246 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH CHHAJED
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Gift; Reopening of assessment

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.788/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mukeshbhai Kashiram Vaghari, 3/2/13, Shala No.4, Vagjhari Fali, Dalwadi Fali, Viramgam, Ahmedabad-382150. [PAN :ANMP7912 R] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, AR Respondent by: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.06.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated17.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld.AO in contravention of law and instruction of CBDT. ITA No. 788/Ahd/2025 Mukesh K Vaghari Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2– 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law And on facts not allowing VC hearing inspite of specific request. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts passing order considering that appellant has not submitted any reply before him though appellant has filed written submission on 30.01.2025 in pursuance of notice u/s.250 of the Act. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not passing order in regards to validity of reopening of assessment challenged by appellant. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.69A of the Act by Ld.AO of Rs.60,00,000/- for cash deposit in bank. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the addition made u/s.69A of the Act by Ld.AO of Rs.60,01,000/- for bank FDR. 8. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.69A of the Act of Rs.17,50,000/- by the Ld.AO in respect of sale of agriculture land. 9. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.69A of the Act of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by Ld.AO which was erroneously disclosed as gift in return of income without any corresponding transaction. 10. The Ld.CIT A.O has not allowed deduction u/s.54F claimed by appellant before him. 11. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 3. On going through the record, we find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any substantial evidence/document to substantiate its claim. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also find that the assessee has failed to furnish reply and supporting evidence even before the Assessing Officer with regard ITA No. 788/Ahd/2025 Mukesh K Vaghari Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 3– to the sources of cash deposits. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee 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 submit all the relevant document and bank statement before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 26.06.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 26.06.2025 MV ITA No. 788/Ahd/2025 Mukesh K Vaghari Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 4– 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 "