TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was one of the family members against whom the case was registered by ACB. As per the information received, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 30,97,000/- in his bank account. Further the assessee had also paid cash of Rs. 50,00,000/- to purchase right in land in block/survey No. 245A and 245B, Subsapur, Gandhinagar by way of agreement to purchase. In the course of assessment, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding the source of cash deposit in the bank account as well as the source of cash payments for purchase of immovable property. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs. 80,97,000/- was added to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 27.03.2022 at total income or Rs. 90,27,410/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the A.O., the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17.10.2025, that the reopening done in that case was invalid. He also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri. Shivaji Rai Chauhan Vs. ITO, ITA No. 435/Ahd/2025 dated 05.02.2024 in this regard. On merits also he submitted that no addition was called for as the assessee had duly explained the source of the cash deposits in the bank account as well as the source of cash payments for purchase of immovable property. 6. Per contra, Shir. Rameshwar P Meena, Ld. Sr. D.R, supported the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. It is found that the A.O. had recorded the reason for escapement of income in the case of the assessee on the basis of information received from ACB. The reason as recorded by the A.O is found to be as under: Reasons for reopening of the assessment in the case of Krunal Virambhai Desai, for A.Y. 2014-15. 1. Assessee is an individual. The assessee has filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 31.10.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 9,30,410/-. 2. As information received related to a criminal offence (Disproportionate Assets) case registered against V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... determining the total income amounting to Rs. 9,30,410/-. 8. On going through the contents of the reason recorded by the A.O. as above, it is found that the A.O had simply reproduced the information received from the ACB and no mind was applied to elicit as to how the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Though the disproportionate asset amount mentioned in the reason is Rs. 4,91,50,347/-, it has not been specified as to in what particular form / asset, this amount was invested. The details of disproportionate assets have not been brought on record in the reason. Further, the A.O has mentioned net cash deposit of Rs. 30,77,079/- and cash payments of Rs. 4,70,65,637/- for purchase of property, but there is no mention of the underlying asset. No particulars are specified in the reason, which is found to be based on borrowed satisfaction only. It appears, prima facie, that the proceeding was initiated by the ACB against Shri. Vikrambhai Lilabhai Desai, father of the assessee, who was Deputy Mamlatdar, Kalol and the investments in the name of family members, including the assessee, was made out of disproportionate income earned by him. Thus, as per allegation of ACB, all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee. There is no detail or break up of Rs. 3.02 Crore of the alleged disproportionate assets of the assessee, as to which specific asset it relates to. No particulars are specified in the reason. In relation to the property purchased by the assessee in cash for Rs. 1.95 Crores, there is no identification/description of the same. The information is not clear as to whether the DA amount of Rs. 3.02 Crs includes the property purchased in cash of Rs. 1.95 Crs and if it does what other assets make up the DA of Rs. 3.02 crs. 14. Undoubtedly the reasons do not point out the income which has escaped assessment. In fact, it is clearly evident from the reasons that the AO's belief of income escaping assessment of the assessee is merely a borrowed belief from the ACB report which mentioned DA of the assessee being to the tune of Rs. 3.02 Crores. The AO has not cared to apply his mind at all to the information and find out what exactly what were these DA assets of the assessee. The AO does not appear to be aware of the nature of assets in relation to which the assessee has been found to be the owner of disproportionate assets. Even with respect to the immovable assets....