YUSUFBHAI ADAMBHAI VAHORA,ANAND V. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

ITA 91/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Yusufbhai Adambhai Vahora against the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), which had added Rs.13,13,363 as unexplained cash deposit to his income for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee, a religious preacher and chairman of a trust, argued that the deposits were donations to the trust and not unexplained income. The Tribunal examined the documents and statements provided, including the trust's income and expenditure statement and the bank statement, and concluded that the additions made were unjustified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781372 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATEEK SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.91/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Yusufbhai Adambhai Vahora, Ismail Nagar, B/H Rolling Mill,Bhalej Road, Anand-388001 [PAN :AQUOM8984 H] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Adjournment Application Filed Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru, under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 01. The Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(Appeals) both are erred in law in making addition of Rs.13,13,363/- for cash deposited in bank account as unexplained cash u/s.69A of the Act. 02 The Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(Appeals) both are also erred in law in treating cash deposited in bank account of Rs.13,13,363/- as unexplained cash deposit us. 69A of the Act without appreciating the facts. 03. The order of Assessing Officer is illegal against the natural justice and good conscience.” 2. The facts of the case are that assessee is a Molana (Islamic religious preacher) and also the founder Chairman (Mutvalli) of a religious namely Masjide Abubakar Committee, situated Near Old Jakat Naka, Bhalej Road, Anand. The said trust is engaged in providing religious education to students Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 91/Ahd/2025 Yusufbhai A Vahora Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– free of cost. At present the students availing the benefit of this institution are approx. 110 students. The said trust was established on 25.03.2004 and it is registered with the Waqf Board, Gandhinagar. 3. The assessee is non-filer during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer, found that assessee has deposited cash in the savings bank account more than the basic exemption limit but failed to file the return of income. Therefore, to verify the source of the cash deposits made, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee under the provisions of section 147 of the IT Act and issued notice under section 148 of the IT Act on 27/03/2018 to the assessee requiring him to file the return of income. The assessee filed the return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the IT Act on 19/10/2018 declaring income of Rs. 1,55,050/-. The Assessing Officer further issued notices u/s 142(1) and 144 of the IT Act requiring the assessee to submit documentary evidence in support of source of cash deposit made in the bank account maintained in his name. As the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued during assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer considered the cash deposit of Rs.13,13,363/- as unexplained money under the provisions of section 69A of the IT Act and concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 on 27/12/2018 by assessing total income at Rs. 14,68,413/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The revenue found that the assessee had deposited Rs.13,13,363/- in his savings account and owing to non-compliance to the notices issued, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 91/Ahd/2025 Yusufbhai A Vahora Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– Assessing Officer made addition of same amount during the assessment proceedings. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessee was a founder Chairman of the Trust imparting education to 110 students. Since the Trust had no bank account in order to facilitate the donations, a bank account has been opened in the name of the assessee wherein the donations of Rs.6,78,727/- have been received. The assessee has submitted the income and expenditure statement as well as bank statement before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the balance sheet, income & expenditure account and the bank account shown in the balance-sheet in which the same cash deposits have been made. Hence keeping in view the entirety of the facts specific to the instant case, the name of the assessee on the bank account is only for the convenience purpose, we hold that no addition in this case is called for. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 29.09.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 29.09.2025 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 Printed from counselvise.com "