SANGITABEN VIKRAMKUMAR PATEL,MEHSANA V. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

ITA 350/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sangitaben Vikramkumar Patel against the exparte appellate order confirming the addition of Rs.3,44,84,650 as unexplained cash under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment was initiated due to non-filing of the income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16, despite significant deposits and withdrawals in the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal considered additional evidence presented for the first time, including bank statements and invoices, and decided to remit the case back to the assessing officer for a fresh evaluation, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822449 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member Sangitaben Vikramkumar Patel C/o. Divyang J Shah 201, 2nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Nr. Regenta Central Ashram Hotel, Off C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380009 PAN: AHLPP3228M (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Patan (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Divyang Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 23-12-2025 Date of pronouncement : 24-12-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 17/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No. 350/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A 350/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2015-16 Sangitaben Vikramkumar Patel Vs. ITO 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the same Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual has not filed her Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2015-16, whereas the assessee has made deposit of Rs.3,44,84,650/- in her Allahabad Bank account and subsequently withdrawn the entire amount during the Financial Year 2014-15. Therefore the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2021. In response, the assessee failed to file the return and failed to reply to the notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore the assessing officer passed exparte assessment order treating the deposit as unexplained cash u/s. 69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein also assessee failed to response to the six hearing notices given to the assessee. Thus Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. 4. Aggrieved against the exparte appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: (1) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs.3,44,84,650/- u/s. 69A of the Act? (2) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act? 5. In the written submission filed by the assessee, the assessee requested to admit additional evidences namely Bank Statement of Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A 350/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2015-16 Sangitaben Vikramkumar Patel Vs. ITO 3 Allahabad Bank account, Copy of Sales Bills, Copy of the Affidavit of the assessee, Copy of the purchase invoices and invoked Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Ld. Counsel further explained that the assessment being a reopening of assessment, assessee could not collect the required details, bank statement which was already eight years old which has resulted in passing exparte order before the Lower Authorities. However before this Tribunal, all necessary details namely bank statement, purchase & sales bills are produced for the first time. Therefore in the interest of justice, the same may be admitted and remitted back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass orders on merits of the case. 6. Ld. CIT-DR Shri Rignesh Das appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee failed to file all necessary details before the Lower Authorities so requested to impose heavy cost on the assessee for deliberate delay in filing the documents. More particularly, when the assessee failed to file original Return of Income as well as return in response to the 148 notice. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the additional documents filed by the assessee invoking Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. It is undisputed fact that the assessee not filed the regular return u/s. 139(1) as well as in response to the 148 notice, which has resulted in passing an exparte order and in the entire deposits in the bank account of Rs.3,44,84,650/- was added as the unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and also charging tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A 350/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2015-16 Sangitaben Vikramkumar Patel Vs. ITO 4 Now the assessee for the first time filed before this Tribunal produced the bank statements, copies of invoice, purchase, sales bills and Affidavit. Therefore in the Interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set-aside the orders passed by the Lower Authorities by imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the assessee in favour of the Income Tax Department within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. On production of copy of the receipt of cost before Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the assessee be provided one more opportunity of hearing to explain its case with relevant documents and materials and thereafter the JAO is to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with the provisions of law. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 -12-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 24/12/2025 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 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 अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "