Bhavesh Harjiram Solanki vs. DCIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Bhavesh Harjiram Solanki, filed returns of income for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. A search and seizure action was conducted on the Rubberwala Group, during which statements were recorded from key individuals indicating that the assessee had made cash payments for the purchase of shops. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions treating these amounts as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee appealed against these additions, which were confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)). The assessee then approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Validity of notice issued under section 153C without DIN
• 2. Addition without referring to any incrementing document
• 3. Not sharing incrementing documents found during the search
• 4. Not providing statement and materials used by AO
• 5. Not providing opportunity of cross-examination
• 6. Addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Jayantilal Jesaram Purohit vs DCIT

• Bharat Harishchandra Purohit vs DCIT, Central Circle – 4(1), Mumbai

• Vidur Chharia Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Shayam Gupta vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19 to 2021-22Partly Allowed

• Arvind Khetaram Purohit vs DCIT Central Circle

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18 & 2018-19Allowed

• Bipin Futarmal Jain vs. DCIT

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20Allowed