NIRMAN,AHMEDABAD V. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1509/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Nirman, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries linked to Shri Sanjay Shah and Shri Jignesh Shah. The assessee contested the reopening of the assessment and the addition, arguing that the proceedings were based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked specific evidence directly connecting the assessee to the alleged transactions. The Tribunal found that the reopening and the subsequent assessment were not supported by concrete evidence and thus allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835485 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Income from undisclosed sources; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Borrowed satisfaction; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 271(1)(c); 132

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirman, 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007 [PAN :AABFN 7155 L] Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr DR Date of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act merely on conjectures and surmises without any tangible evidence. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by AO ignoring fact that no material was provided to the appellant and thus violated principle of natural justice. 4. Ld. NFAC ought to have deleted addition as statements, material relied on and cross examinations was not provided to the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– 5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in passing order in summary manner without recording finding on merits. …….. …….. 9. The reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act is invalid and required to be quashed.” 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income for the year under consideration on 06.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 20,06,810/-. Subsequently, based on information received from the DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021, alleging that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from concerns allegedly controlled by Shri Sanjay Shah and Shri Jignesh Shah. The reopening was based on a search action conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 11.09.2018 in the case of the aforesaid persons, wherein unaccounted cash and digital evidences relating to accommodation entries, bogus LTCG, and contrived losses were allegedly found. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. For the sake of ready reference, the reasons recorded for reopening the case are reproduced here asunder:- “BASIS OF FORMING REASON TO BELIEVE AND DETAILS OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME: As per the information received from Dy. Director of Income-Tax(Inv.), Unit- 1(3), Ahmedabad, a search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 11.09.2018 in the case of Sanjay Shah and Jignesh Shah of Ahmedabad (JSSS hereinafter) The search resulted into seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs. 19.37 Crores (related to accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) along with incriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine record of unaccounted cash, synchronized trading, proving bogus LTCG in various BSE listed scripts and transport of such cash through angadiyas was found to be maintained in secret Tally Data file Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 3– with company name \"123\". In this secret file, against transactions of shares on BSE platform, movement (angadiya) and delivery (recd) of cash is recorded. Furthermore, the receipt of commission in cash is also recorded under the head \"LTCG COMMISSION The evidences manifest that this is the record of accommodation entries of LTCG against receipt of cash. The evidences demonstrate that accommodation entry provider duo has resorted to synchronized trading in shares of various listed companies, because it is only through synchronized trading that the sellers are ensured accommodation entry of bogus LTCG against cash and the buyers are ensured delivery of cash against such pre-determined purchase of shares. The buy and sell parties are well planned in this transaction, as only in such scenario, the cash is assured to the buyer and sale proceeds of shares are assured in the bank account linked with the demat account of seller. This is conclusive evidence of bogus LTCG and synchronized trading. Furthermore, other kind of Digital Data including incriminating MS Excel files, incriminating Word Files, Whatsapp Chats/Images and documents including Khata-Bahis were also found and duly analyzed. Stamps and bank accounts of various persons were also found in possession of accommodation entry provider duo. During recording of their statements and by filing affidavits, various dummy directors admitted that they were merely signing documents on directions of operators. They admitted of being involved in providing accommodation entries of LTCG, Loss, Unsecured Loans etc. Data analysis coupled with circumstantial evidences led to discovery that 15 BSE listed scrips have been used for generating bogus LTCG and contrived losses. During investigation, sample trail of funds was also established wherein the infrastructure of shroffs and angadiyas was used by the duo for routing unaccounted funds of beneficiaries. The duo also admitted being involved in providing accommodation entries including bogus LTCG and contrived losses. On perusal of information so received, it is noticed that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has obtained accommodation entry of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in the form of fictitious loan from Shri Jignesh Shah wherein a search action was carried out by the Investigation Wing of Ahmedabad which is required to be brought to tax. Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the AY 2014-15 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I have, therefore, reason to believe that this is a fit case for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and for issue of notice u/s, 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In view of the above, you may submit your response with supporting documents (if any) on the above mentioned issues to undersigned electronically in 'E-proceedings' facility through your account in e- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 4– Filling website (www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in) at your convenience on or before 03/06/2021 ….” 5. Against the notice of reopening, the assessee has raised objections by way of its letter dated 31st May 2021, which reads as under:- “…… ……. (1). We have objections against your re-opening of assessment proceedings and issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 30-03-2021 on following grounds:- 1) You have provided only reasons recorded the Assessing Officer who was in charge of the case at that time. You have not provided copy of permission/satisfaction obtained from your higher authority. Thus, it is not clear that whether due process of law as stipulated by the Income Tax Act is followed or not. We request you to provide us copy of recorded reasons duly signed by you the Assessing Officer at the relevant time and also showing the date of his signing. We also request you to provide us duly signed copy of satisfaction / permission obtained from higher authority. In other words, we request you to provide us scan xerox copies of the said documents, reasons and authorization, showing the actual signatures and dates of signing. From the reason given by you, how one can know on which dates reasons were recorded and who had given the permission and on which dates? Thus, you are not providing proper evidences showing that due process stipulated by law is followed or not for re-opening of our case for A.Y. 2014-15. 2) You are conducting proceedings based on reasons recorded by another officer. Your proceedings suffer from change of opinion and lack of application of mind and is invalid. 3) Your inquiry is based on the statements of Shuri Sanjay Shah and Shri Jignesh Shah, third party, referred into the information received from Dy. Director of Income Tax (Iny.). Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad, You have not provider copies of statements of Shri Sanjay Shah and Siri Jignesh Shah 4) On merits also, we would like to draw your kind attention to the fact that information on the basis of which you have recorded reason for reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 is completely wrong. You have mentioned in the reasons as under: \"On perusal of information so received, it is noticed that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has obtained accommodation entry of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 5– 1,00,00,000/- in the form of fictitious loan from Shri Jignesh Shah wherein a search action was carried out by the Investigation Wing of Ahmedabad which is required to be brought to tax. Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the AY 2014-15 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1 have, therefore, reason to believe that this is a fit case for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\" We have to submit that during the year, we have no any transaction of any amount and / or any accommodation entries of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from Shri Jignesh Shah in the form of unsecured loan or on any other form. This can be verified by you from the audited accounts and audit reports filed with you. Information on which you have relied is completely wrong and baseless and reopening of assessment based on reasons recorded on such wrong information is not tenable in law and invalid. We submit that inference drawn by you can not be derived from wrong information received by you and you are simply resorting to roving and fishing inquiry. We submit that this is bad and not permissible under law. (II). We request you to provide us following: (ii) Copies of statements of Shri Sanjay Shah and Shri Jignesh Shah. (iii) Scan/ xerox copies of the reasons recorded for reopening and authorization showing the actual signatures and dates of signing as asked at para 1 above. (III). In case you decide to proceed further, we also request you to give us an opportunity to cross examine the said Shri Sanjay Shah and Shri Jignesh Shah. In view of above, we submit that your reopening proceeding is completely illegal and bad in law and we request you to close the proceedings. In case you decide to continue the proceedings, provide us copies of documents asked by us at Para (II) above and also request you to dispose off our objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding further in the matter and provide us …..”. 6. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, making disallowance u/s 69A of the Act of Rs.1,00,00,000/- by observing as under:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 6– “The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 06.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 20,06,810/-. On carefully examining the information received from DDIT(Inv), 1(3), Ahmedabad and also on perusal of the same, it is seen that a search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Jigar Shah and Sanjay Shah/Shroff of Ahmedabad. It is further worth to mention that the above persons are managing and controlling multiple companies and concerns which are not carrying out any genuine business activity and involved in providing accommodation entries of various kinds such as unsecured loans, share premiums, penny scripts, bogus gains, contrived losses etc. It is found that as per data available on the records, such companies/concerns were found to be non- existent at their respective addresses. Moreover, above mentioned companies/concerns are not carrying out genuine business activities. On perusal of the information, it is found that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has availed /obtained accommodation entries of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under various head from various concerns who are controlled and managed by above persons. 2. Since, the assessee has not offered the above income for taxation, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021. The assessee filed return of income against the notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 19.04.2021. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) rws 147 of the Act along with reasons recorded for reopening was issued to the assessee on 19.05.2021. On receipt of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the assessee filed objection against the reopening on 31.05.2021. The objection raised by the assessee was duly disposed off by this office by passing a speaking order on 01.09.2021. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee vide this office notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 28.12.2021 calling for details of bank accounts, FDR, purchase of assets, creditors and their confirmation regarding unsecured loan etc. Vide the reply dated 03.02.2022, the assessee has submitted some details but denied to have received any loan from Shri Jignesh Shah. Further, a show cause notice was issued to the assesse on 25.03.2022 asking the assessee to show cause as to why transaction of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by it with Shri Jignesh Shah should not be disallowed. The assessee has submitted its reply vide letter dated 27.03.2022. 3. Information was received from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad. As per the information a search action u/s. 132 was conducted on 11.09.2018 in the case of Sanjay Shah and Jignesh Shah of Ahmedabad(JSSS). The search resulted into seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs. 19.37 crores(related to accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) alongwith incriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine record of unaccounted cash, synchronized trading, providing bogus LTCG in various BSE listed scrips and transport of such cash through angadiyas was found to be maintained in secret Tally Data file with company name “123”. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 7– In this secret file, against transactions of shares on BSE Platform, movement (angadiya) and delivery(recd) of cash is recorded. Furthermore, the receipt of commission in cash is also recorded under the head “LTG COMMISSION”. The evidences demonstrate that accommodation entry provided duo has resorted to synchronized trading in shares of various listed companies, because it is only through synchronized trading that the sellers are ensured determined purchase of shares. The buy and sell parties are well planned in this transaction, as only in such scenario, the cash is assured to the buyer and sale proceeds of shares are assured in the bank account linked with the demat account of seller. This is conclusive evidence of bogus LTCG and synchronized trading. During search proceedings, Jignesh Shah and Umang Shah(Accountant of Sanjay Shah) have also admitted that the script has been used for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG against cash from beneficiaries. 4. Furthermore, other kind of Digital Data including incrimination MS Excel files, incriminating Word files, Whatsapp Chats/Images and documents including KhataBahis were also found and duly analysed. Stamps and bank accounts of various persons were also found in possession of accommodation entry provider duo. During recording of their statements and by filing affidavits, various dummy directors admitted that they were merely signing documents of Directors of operations. They admitted of being involved in providing accommodation entries of LTCG, Loss, Unsecured loans etc. Data analysis coupled with circumstantial evidences led to discovery that 15BSE Listed scrips have been used for generating bogus LTCG and contrived losses. During investigation, sample trail of funds was also established wherein the infrastructure of shroffs and angadiyas was used by the duo for routing unaccounted funds of beneficiaries. The duo admitted being involved in providing accommodation entries including bogus LTCG and contrived losses. 5. On perusal of information, it is found that the assessee, is one of the beneficiaries and made transactions during F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15. The information disseminated by the Investigation wing in respect of the transaction made by the assessee in penny stock is self-explanatory. It is thus clear that the assessee had entered into share transaction of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in penny scripts managed controlled by Shri Jignesh Shah through fabricated trading with a view to ultimately reduce tax liability. Thus, it is clear that the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- had escaped assessment. 6. The reply of the assessee that he has not received any loan from Shri Jignesh Shah is baseless which is nothing but a desperate attempt to protect the interests of the various clients/beneficiaries of the accommodation entries. The following facts are brought on record: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 8– (i) Shri Sanjay Shah and Shri Jignesh Shah are directors in few concerns only. However, through various dummy directors/proprietors, they control, operates, and manages a large no of concerns. (ii) The entities managed by Shri Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah are not carrying out any genuine business without any employed persons except the few common accountants who manage accounts and banking transactions. (iii) This concern was indulged in the activity of providing accommodation entries only. (iv) The search operation unearthed valid material that discredits and impeaches the particulars furnished by the assessee and it has also been expressly established the link between self-confessed “accommodation entry providers”, Sanjay Shah and Jignesh Shah and others whose business was to help assessees bring into their books of account their unaccounted monies through the medium of penny stock shares of non-genuine entities. The involvement of the assessee in such modus operandi is clearly indicated by valid material available as a result of investigations carried out by the Investigation Wing into the activities of such ‘entry providers’. 7. From the above facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee has not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for the assessment for the year under consideration and hence the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- received by the assessee as accommodation entry from penny scripts controlled and managed by Shri Jignesh Shah of the Act is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee as per section 69A of the It Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income. (Disallowance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-)” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing that assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries. The Ld. CIT(A) held as under:- “2. The grounds of appeal object to addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A as unexplained money of the assessee. 2.1 On carefully examining the information received from DDIT(Inv), 1(3), Ahmedabad and also on perusal of the same, it is seen that a search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Jigar Shah and Sanjay Shah/Shroff of Ahmedabad. It is further worth to mention that the above persons are managing and controlling multiple companies and concerns which are not carrying out any genuine business activity and involved in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 9– providing accommodation entries of various kinds such as unsecured loans, share premiums, penny scripts, bogus gains, contrived losses etc. 2.2 On perusal of the information, it is found that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has availed /obtained accommodation entries of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under various head from various concerns who are controlled and managed by above persons. 2.3 On perusal of information, it is found that the assessee, is one of the beneficiaries and made transactions during F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15. The information disseminated by the Investigation wing in respect of the transaction made by the assessee in penny stock is self-explanatory. It is thus clear that the assessee had entered into share transaction of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in penny scripts managed controlled by Shri Jignesh Shah through fabricated trading with a view to ultimately reduce tax liability. Thus, it is clear that the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- had escaped assessment. The reply of the assessee that he has not received any loan from Shri Jignesh Shah is baseless which is nothing but a desperate attempt to protect the interests of the various clients/beneficiaries of the accommodation entries. The addition of Rs. 1 crore u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE as unexplained money is confirmed. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It was also submitted that the addition was made merely on the basis of general investigation reports without any direct nexus between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entry providers. The Ld. AR argued that the assessee had categorically denied receiving any loan or accommodation entry or LTCG from Shri Jignesh Shah. The Ld. AR thus prayed that the addition be deleted and the reassessment proceedings be quashed. 10. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that information received from the Investigation Wing constituted sufficient basis for reopening the assessment. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 10– 11. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. With regard to the reopening of assessment u/s 148, we find that the reopening as well as the consequential assessment is passed entirely on information received from the Investigation Wing in relation to search proceedings conducted in the cases of Shri Sanjay Shah and Shri Jignesh Shah. However, beyond reproducing the modus operandi allegedly adopted by the said persons, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any incriminating material, document or evidence which directly links the assessee with the alleged accommodation entry transactions. The reasons recorded merely state that “the assessee is one of the beneficiaries” without disclosing how, on what basis and on the strength of which evidence such a conclusion has been drawn. The expression “beneficiary” is used as a label, not as a finding supported by material evidence in the case of the assessee. The date of receiving of loan, amounts, cheque number, bank account from which the cheques have been issued, bank account in which the cheques have been encashed are flagrantly missing. Such reopening, based on vague and non-specific information, reflects borrowed satisfaction and not an independent formation of belief as required under section 147 of the Act. 11.1 We also find blatant inconsistencies in the stand of the Assessing Officer viz. in the reasons recorded for reopening, the allegation is that the assessee received a fictitious unsecured loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Shri Jignesh Shah. However, in the assessment order, the nature of transaction is shifted to penny stock transactions resulting in bogus gains. This shifting of stand clearly demonstrates that the Assessing Officer himself was uncertain about the very nature of the alleged escapement of income. An assessment cannot be sustained on such changing and contradictory allegations, as they strike at the root of jurisdiction as well as merits. Even if it is treated as LTCG, on going through the ITR we find that assessee has not claimed any LTCG or long term capital loss. At Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 11– places, the Assessing Officer mentions accommodation entries, at places it is mentioned as loan and finally assessed as LTCG which the assessee has never claimed. We also find that no loan has been received by the assessee as per the balance-sheet or the bank account. Even if it is assumed that, if not Jignesh Shah, it is the entities controlled by Jignesh Shah who provided fictious loan or gains, there was no such evidence on record or not even an iota of information directing to these transactions. 11.2 In the absence of any evidence of receipt or ownership of money, we hold that the addition has been erroneously made. For invoking section 69A, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee is the owner of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which is not recorded in the books of account. The basic condition precedent for invoking section 69A remains unfulfilled. In the present case, i. No cash or money has been found in the possession of the assessee; ii. No bank entry evidencing receipt of ₹1 crore has been identified; iii. No seized document refers to receipt of money by the assessee; iv. No transaction trail has been established. 11.3 Further, we find that the Revenue has heavily relied upon statements of Shri Sanjay Shah and Shri Jignesh Shah and other third parties recorded during search proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that copies of such statements were not supplied to the assessee despite specific request till the completion of assessment and the appellate proceedings. It is incumbent upon the Revenue to at least supply the assessee with the material collected. We find that Assessment Order is largely a reproduction of the Investigation Wing report describing the general modus operandi of accommodation entry providers. The Assessing Officer has not carried out any independent enquiry or verification with reference to the assessee’s books of account, bank statements or audited financials during the assessment proceedings, if not at the time of re- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 12– opening. Such an approach does not meet the statutory requirement of an assessment being framed after due application of mind and bringing the relevant evidences on record. 11.4 It is deplorable that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in a summary and mechanical manner, without addressing the specific contentions raised by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), being a quasi-judicial authority, was duty- bound to independently evaluate the material and render reasoned findings. The failure to do so renders the appellate order unsustainable. The appellate order merely reiterates the findings of the Assessing Officer without examining absence of assessee-specific evidence, incorrect assumption of facts, applicability of section 69A of the Act. We strongly condemn the action of the Assessing Officer and that of the Ld. CIT(A) in dealing with the tax issues and stop short of levying any cost and leave the matter of augmenting the efficiency, educating and training of their higher administration. 11.5 Since the reopening is based on vague and non-specific information, the assessment is framed without any evidence establishing receipt or ownership of unexplained money and since the Ld. CIT(A) has mechanically confirmed an unsustainable addition, we hold that the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act is directed to be deleted. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 13.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 13.02.2026 **btk Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1509/Ahd/2025 Nirman Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 13– आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation … words processed by the Hon’ble VP on his PC on ……04.02.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 04.02.2026 3. Other Member 11.02.2026 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 11 .02.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 13 .02.26 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 13 .02.26 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 13 .02.26 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 Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "