NURMAHMED AHMED ASMAL,SURAT V. ACIT, CC-3, SURAT

ITSSA 46/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by different assessees, including Ismail Ahmed Asmal, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad, concerning the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals were consolidated due to common facts and issues, except for the quantum. The primary contention revolved around alleged unexplained investments in land, which were subjected to additions in the assessees' income. The Assessing Officer had made these additions based on statements and documents seized during a search operation at M/s. SRK Group, Surat, which indirectly implicated the assessees. The Tribunal found that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity to present their case and that the legal provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act were not correctly applied by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839384 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Abhisar Buildwell P.Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) / 293 Taxman 141 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: P. M. JAGASHETH
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 144; 132; 153A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सूरत \u0010ा यपीठ, सूरत । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT [conducted through Hybrid mode at Ahmedabad Bench] \u0015ी संजय गग\u0019, \u0010ा ियक सद\u001b एवं \u0015ी नरे !सा द िस\"ा , लेखा सद\u001b क े सम%। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member Sl. No(s) आयकर अपील सं/ IT(SS)A No(s) िनधा \u0010रण वष\u0010/ Assess- ment Year(s) Appeal(s) by : अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent 1. 44/SRT/2024 2014-15 Ismail Ahmed Asmal Post Kathor, Taluka Kamrej Surat 394 210 PAN : BGWPA 1774 Q (Assessee) The Asst.CIT Central Circle-3 Surat 395 001 (Revenue) 2. 45/SRT/2024 2013-14 Nurmahmed Ahmed Asmal PAN: BMKPA 1437 N (address as above) Revenue 3. 46/SRT/2024 2014-15 Nurmahmed Ahmed Asmal Revenue 4. 47/SRT/2024 2013-14 Husan Ahmed Asmal PAN: BGVPA 2506 B (address as above) Revenue 5. 48/SRT/2024 2014-15 Husan Ahmed Asmal Revenue 6. 49/SRT/2024 2013-14 Yusuf Ahmed Asmal PAN: BMKPA 1437 N (address as above) Revenue 7. 50/SRT/2024 2014-15 Yusuf Ahmed Asmal Revenue Assessee by : Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT(DR) Printed from counselvise.com IT(ss)A Nos.44-50/SRT/2024 Ismail Ahmed Asmel & Others Asst. Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 2 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned seven appeals have been preferred by the different assessees against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] of even date 19/09/2023 pertaining to different Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Since common facts and issues are involved (except quantum) in all these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of by a consolidated order. Assessee’s appeal in IT(SS)A No.45/SRT/2024 for AY 2013-14 is taken as a lead case for the purpose of narration of facts. IT(SS)A No.45/SRT/2024 for AY 2013-14 :- 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the addition of Rs.36,52,880/- and determined the investment of Rs.91,32,200/- on the account of alleged unexplained investment in land. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition Rs.91,32,200/ on the account of alleged unexplained investment in land. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.54,79,320/- on the account of alleged unexplained investment in land. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee had not filed return of income for the year under consideration. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax, 1961 was carried Printed from counselvise.com IT(ss)A Nos.44-50/SRT/2024 Ismail Ahmed Asmel & Others Asst. Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 3 out on 19.07.2016 in the case of M/s. SRK Group, Surat. During the course of search proceedings certain incriminating documents and evidences were seized and some of the entries pertaining to and information contained therein related to the assessee were also found. Consequent to the said search- action, jurisdiction over this case was transferred to Assessing Officer (AO) of the assessee. Subsequently, notices u/s.153C of the Act dated 29.11.2018 was issued to the assessee for various assessment years including the A.Y. under consideration and same was served on 30.11.2018. In response to the aforesaid notice u/s. 153C of the Act, nobody attended nor filed any adjournment application. The AO, therefore, proceeded to frame the assessment ex-parte of the assessee u/s 144 of the Act. He noted that Shri Ismail Ahmed Asmal, the power of attorney of the assessee, in his statement on oath, admitted to have purchased a piece of agricultural land bearing block no. 527/B/3 of Kathor village, Taluka Kamrej, Dist: Surat, admeasuring 45661 sq. mts. for a document value of Rs. 2,73,96,600/-. As per the sale deed, this piece of land was purchased in the names of his close relatives - Shri Yusuf Ahmed Asmal, Shri Husein Ahmed Asmal and Shri Noormohmed Ahmed Asmal. The said sale deed was registered with the Sub Registrar, Kamrej on 18.10.2012 at registration no. KMJ/8363/2012. The entire sale proceeds were paid by the purchasers in cash. The sellers of the land are Shri Aiyub Yakub Doba (PAN: BIUPD5350D), Shri Ashad Aiyub Doba (PAN: ATSPD4839M), Shri Anas Aiyub Doba (No PAN) and Amena Aiyub Doba (PAN: BIUPD5351C). Shri Ismail Ahmed Asmal, the power of attorney of the assessee, had not satisfactorily explained the source of funds for acquisition of the above piece of land. That this issue was raised during the course of recording of statement of Shri Ismail Ahmed Asmal. It was stated by him that the piece of land was purchased out of cash amounts received against sale of land to M/s. SRK Group and by making cash withdrawals. Since there was Printed from counselvise.com IT(ss)A Nos.44-50/SRT/2024 Ismail Ahmed Asmel & Others Asst. Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 4 no appearance or response in the assessment proceedings, the AO passed the assessment order making the impugned additions. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that since no incriminating material was found during the course of search in the case of M/s. SRK Group, Surat against the assessee, therefore the invocation of the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act was not justified. The Ld. CIT(A), however, observed that assessee had not filed any original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. In fact, the assessee did not file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act issued by the AO. As no return of income was filed by the assessee, the assessee cannot claim his case as completed/unabated case for applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P.Ltd. 2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) / 293 Taxman 141 (SC). 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in this case the AO has not given proper opportunity to the assessee to present her case. That even the Ld. CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the plea taken by the assessee. That for invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act, some incriminating material against the assessee must be found during the course of search action in case of third party, but the Ld. CIT(A) totally misconstrued the above legal ground raised by the assessee and proceeded to discuss the case of the assessee in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P.Ltd.(supra) taking that the case of the assessee was of section 153A assessment, whereas, the assessment in the case of the assessee was framed u/s. 153C of the Act. The Ld. Counsel has further Printed from counselvise.com IT(ss)A Nos.44-50/SRT/2024 Ismail Ahmed Asmel & Others Asst. Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 5 submitted that assessee has a fair case on merits. That the assessee may be given an opportunity to present her case before the Ld. AO. 6. The Ld. DR has also not disputed that in this case the case of the assessee remain to be properly appreciated at the end of lower authorities. 7. Considering the above submissions, we are of the view that the interests of Justice will be well served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present her case before the Assessing Officer (AO). We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. All the grounds both legal as well as on merits will be available to the assessee before the AO and the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee will pass the assessment order afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Since the facts and issues involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, therefore, the impugned orders of the in all the captioned appeals are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment with similar directions as given above. Printed from counselvise.com IT(ss)A Nos.44-50/SRT/2024 Ismail Ahmed Asmel & Others Asst. Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 6 10. In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed fort statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 /02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 27/02/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS 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)-4, Ahmedabad 5. िवभागीय !ितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. 6. गाड\u0010 फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत !ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT,Surat/Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation on computer)) : 25..2.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 25.2.2026 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. : 27.2.26 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 27/2/26 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 Despatch of the Order : Printed from counselvise.com "