MUNIRABAI MOHAMMADI KALOLWALA,PANCHMAHAL V. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), VADODARA

ITA 1433/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Munirabai Mohammadi Kalolwala against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 69 and 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeal ex-parte by the CIT(A) and the confirmation of additions without adequately considering the DVO's report. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) and the A.O. had not properly considered the DVO's report and had decided the case on presumptions, which led to the remand of the case to the A.O.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790039 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHAKAR VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: URVASHI SODHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tax effect; Principle of natural justice; Value adopted by valuation officer
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 56(2)(vii)(b); 69

Judgement Text

"THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Munirabai Mohammadi Kalolwala, Amli Falia, Nr. Saifee Masjid, Godhra, Dist Panch Mahals PAN: CNYPK7677L (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-4(1)(2), Vadodara (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 06-10-2025 Date of pronouncement : 26-11-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 10-03- 2025 passed by CIT(A)/ADDL/JCIT(A), Kochi for assessment year 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Erred in dismissing appeal as an ex-parte. 2. Erred-in-law in confirming addition of 2,25,000/- as unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Act. 3. Erred-in-law in confirming addition of 15,47,500/- U/s 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act. 4. Erred-in-law in confirming addition made U/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act without referring the matter to the Valuation officer. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. ITA No. 1433/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-16 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1433/Ahd/2025 Munirabai Mohammadi Kalolwala, A.Y. 2015-16 2 Total tax effect 7,58,070/-” 3. The assessee filed original return of income for assessment year 2015-16 declaring income at Rs. 2,04,800/- on 31-03-2017 after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee along with three persons has purchased immovable properties to Rs. 4,50,000/- being 1/3 share. As per the stamp valuation authority, the jantry value determined at Rs. 27,14,487/-, Rs. 43,69,680/- respectively. The assessee purchased immoveable consideration below jantry value determined as per Stamp Valuation Authority by amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/- which is in contravention to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 28-03-2019. Notice u/s. 142(1) r.w.s. 129 was issued on 19-11-2019 and 29- 11-2019. In response to the same, the assessee filed return of income on 6-12-2019 declaring total income at Rs. 2,04,800/-. The statutory notices were issued and the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 15,47,000/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 44 days for which the assessee has filed the affidavit for donation of delay which appears to be genuine reason for delay, hence the delay is condoned. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1433/Ahd/2025 Munirabai Mohammadi Kalolwala, A.Y. 2015-16 3 6. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the CIT(A) has not given any hearing to the assessee and passed ex-parte order. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act as the DVO has already given the report which was totally ignored by both the authorities. 7. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has categorically mentioned para 5 of the assessment order that CIT(A) called for DVO report. Without taking cognizance of DVO’s report both CIT(A) and A.O. has decided the case simply on surmises basis which is not justified. Therefore, we are remanding back this matter to the file of A.O. and direct the A.O. to take into account the DVO’s report before adjudicating the issues on merit and decide the same as per Income Tax Act. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26-11-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 26/11/2025 आदेश क\u0006 \u0007\bत ल प अ\u000fे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1433/Ahd/2025 Munirabai Mohammadi Kalolwala, A.Y. 2015-16 4 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील\u0012य अ\u0013धकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "