NALINKANT SHYAMSHANKER PANDYA,VADODARA V. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

ITA 867/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya, who did not file his income tax return for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted substantial cash and non-cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and proceeded with an assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating a significant portion of these deposits as unexplained. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment considering additional evidences. The assessee contested the jurisdiction of the AO and the timeliness of the assessment order, which were both dismissed by the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712137 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Pushpa Gupta vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAMAL DEEP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT SUTHAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ SMC,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u0019ी टी.आर. से ल क ुमार, \u0011ाियक सद एवं \u0019ी नरे% &साद िस'ा, लेखा सद क े सम)। ] ] BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.867/Ahd/2025 िनधा \u000fरण वष\u000f /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya Ramji Mandir Tekra Narmada Mandir Chandod, Dabhoi Vadodara – 391 105 बनाम/ v/s. The ITO Ward-1 Godhra – 389 001 \u0013थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ADUPP 6004 C (अपीलाथ+/ Appellant) (&, यथ+/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Revenue by : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 28/02/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], arising from the assessment order dated 30/12/2019 passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 867/Ahd/2025 Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) had received an information that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.14,01,000/- in his bank account with Dena bank, Dabhoi during the Financial Year (FY) 2011- 12. In addition, there were non-cash deposits of Rs.3,39,450/- in the said bank account. On the basis of this information, the AO had recorded his reason u/s.147 of the Act and a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 29/03/2019. No return was filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act. However, the assessee had replied through e-mail to the show-cause notice of the AO and given explanation regarding the cash deposits. The AO considered the cash deposit of Rs.5 lakhs only as explained and the balance amount of Rs.12,40,442/- in respect of cash deposit treated as non-cash deposit was held as unexplained. The assessment was completed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act on 30/12/2019 at total income of Rs.12,40,440/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which was decided vide the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) had set aside the matter to the file of AO, in order to examine the additional evidences filed during the course of appeal and directed the AO to make a fresh assessment thereafter. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, has erred in law and in facts in setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. A.O. for making fresh assessment without adjudicating the following technical and legal issues raised by the appellant before him: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 867/Ahd/2025 Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 3 i The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and in facts in making the assessment without proper jurisdiction over the case of the appellant. The order so passed without having proper jurisdiction, is bad in law and is prayed to be deleted. ii Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and in facts in passing the order which is time barred, as the order was dispatched on 03.01.2020 and served to the appellant on 06.01.2020. The order so made is bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC ought to have adjudicated the above grounds on the basis of the submissions made by the appellant and the relevant case laws relied upon by the appellant and quashed the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. treating the same as illegal and bad in law instead of setting aside the matter to the Ld. A.O. It is prayed that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.O. be treated as illegal and bad in law and are liable to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have adjudicated the following grounds of appeal raised before him on merits based on the submissions/documents / evidences furnished during the course of appellate proceedings. i. Without prejudice to grounds the other grounds of appeal, the Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in making the addition of Rs. 12,40,442/-. The same being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. It is prayed that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), being bad in law, may please be set aside and he may be directed to adjudicate the above grounds on merits. 3. 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.” 5. The first ground taken by the assessee pertains to the jurisdiction of the AO. Shri Hemant Suthar, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessment was made without proper jurisdiction. He explained that notice u/s.148 of the Act, in this case, was issued by the ITO, Ward-1, Godhra, who had no jurisdiction over the case as the assessee was residing in Vadodara. He submitted that since the ITO, Ward-1, Godhra did not have the jurisdiction over the case, the assessment order should be quashed. In this Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 867/Ahd/2025 Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 4 regard, he relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Pushpa Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No.3604/DEL/2019 dated 18/04/2024. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee never filed his return of income and had participated in the proceeding initiated by ITO, Ward-1, Godhra. Further that, the assessee did not object to the jurisdiction of the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances, the assessee was precluded from raising the ground of jurisdiction at this stage, in accordance with the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee didn’t file his return of income for AY 202-13. The assessee has also not brought on record any evidence showing that any return of income was filed by him for the earlier years, in a different jurisdiction. The PAN of the assessee was all alone in the jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-1, Godhra, which was on the basis of the address as mentioned by the assessee in the PAN application. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the objection raised by the assessee in respect of jurisdiction of the AO. Neither the assessee has brought on record any evidence in respect of change of address nor the assessee has claimed that he had ever intimated the AO/ Department about any change in address. Further, the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings and submitted his response to the show-cause notice issued by the AO. Having participated in the assessment proceedings, the assessee is now precluded from raising the objection about jurisdiction, in accordance with the provisions of section 124(3)(6) of the Act. The facts in the case of Pushpa Gupta (supra), relied upon by the assessee, is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 867/Ahd/2025 Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 5 found to be totally different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, the ratio of said decision cannot be applied to the present case. Considering the peculiar facts of the case as discussed above, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld. The ground taken by the assessee on the issue of jurisdiction is dismissed. 8. The next ground pertains to addition of Rs.12,40,442/- in respect of deposit in the bank account. According to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated this issue on merits rather than setting aside the matter to the file of the AO. It is found that the assessee had filed additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A), which could not have been taken into account without providing an opportunity to the AO. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to consider the additional evidences of the assessee and thereafter re-adjudicate the matter. The direction of the Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the matter was in accordance with the power vested upon him under the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld. The ground of the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd July, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 22/07/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 867/Ahd/2025 Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 6 आदेश की \"ितिलिप अ#ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 2. \"%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय \"ितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड\u000f फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत \"ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with this file) : 17.7.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 18.7.2025 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 22.7.25 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 22.7.25 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order : Printed from counselvise.com "