TEHMUL B SETHNA ,AHMEDABAD V. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

ITA 174/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Tehmul B. Sethna, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad, which set aside the original assessment order regarding gold coins found during a search. The search, conducted under Section 132 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, on November 29, 2016, resulted in the discovery of 738.5 grams of gold coins in a bank locker. The assessee explained that 500 grams belonged to his son and 238.5 grams to him, and provided wealth tax returns from 2010-11 and 2014-15 to demonstrate prior disclosure of the gold. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted this explanation and made no additions to the assessee's income. However, the Principal Commissioner, exercising revisionary powers under Section 263, found the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, leading to the current appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790726 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. P. RASTOGI
• Assessee Lawyers: M.S. CHHAJED
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ “बी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u0015ी संजय गग\u001a, \u0011ाियक सद\u001b एवं \u0015ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद\u001b क े सम!। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.174/Ahd/2022 िनधा \u000fरण वष\u000f /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tehmul B Sethna 304, Aakasha complex, Opp. Vadilal House, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009 बनाम/ v/s. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ahmedabad-380 009 \u0013थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AMDPS 6538 G (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR Revenue by : Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. PCIT” for short] dated 31/03/2022 passed in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"] for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/Ahd/2022 Tehmul B. Sethna vs.The Pr.CIT (Central) Asst.Year : 2017-18 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search action was carried out u/s.132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 29/11/2016, during which, gold coins weighing 738.5grams were found from the bank locker. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee duly explained that out of the 738grams gold-coins, 500grams gold coins belonged to his son and 238.5 grams gold-coins belonged to him. The assessee also furnished the wealth tax returns for AY 2010-11 and AY 2014-15 before the Assessing Officer (AO) to show that the assessee had duly disclosed gold available with him and that the gold disclosed in the wealth tax return was more than that was found at the residence of the assessee. The Ld. AO after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, did not make any addition on account of the said gold-coins weighing 738.5grams. 3. The Ld. PCIT, however, exercising his power jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act, observed that the AO has merely believed on the wealth tax returns of the assessee. That the AO had not insisted upon the assessee to produce bills and vouchers regarding purchase of the aforesaid gold-coins. He, therefore, set aside the impugned assessment order holding that the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law for the limited purpose of examining the particulars with respect to gold-coins of 238.5grams and its taxability in the hands of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has come in appeal before us. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through material available on record. It is to be noted that in this case, the assessee had already Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/Ahd/2022 Tehmul B. Sethna vs.The Pr.CIT (Central) Asst.Year : 2017-18 3 taken into account and duly disclosed in his wealth-tax returns about the availability of the gold-coins/gold with him and further that the gold-coins found during the search action were not more than that was already disclosed by the assessee in his wealth-tax returns for the AY 2010-11 and AY 2014-15. The AO after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and explanation given by the assessee, did not find it a fit case for making any addition. In our view, under such circumstances, the said assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous. The Ld. PCIT in this case has attgempted to substitute the plausible view of the AO with his own view and insisted that the AO should have called upon the evidence in the shape of bills and vouchers vide which the aforesaid gold-coins were purchased. In our view, the said action of the Ld. PCIT is not justified. When the assessee had already disclosed the aforesaid gold in his earlier years’ wealth-tax-returns, there was no requirement of further questioning the assessee on this issue. Moreover, the excess gold weighing 238grams is not a large quantity, which remained unexplained. In view of our above observations, exercise of revision jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT u/s.263 of the Act, in this case, is not justified. Therefore, the impugned revision order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s.263 of the Act is hereby quashed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05 /12/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand V. Mahadeokar) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 05/12/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/Ahd/2022 Tehmul B. Sethna vs.The Pr.CIT (Central) Asst.Year : 2017-18 4 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 Pr.CIT(Central), Ahmedabad 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 the file)) : 4.12.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 4.12.2025/5.12.25 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. : 05.12.25 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 05.12.25 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 "