IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

The Assistant Commissioner Rajeshbhai Maganbhai Ahir of Income Tax, D-16,17,18, Panchvati Circle-1, Society, Behind Intercity Vs.

Vapi. Township, PunaKumbhadiyaRoad, Kumbhariya B.O, [PANS u: rAaGt-H39P5A061707 6G]

Appellant Respondent Appellant by :

( ) .. ( )

Respondent by:

Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR Date of Hearing Shri Hardik Vora, AR Date of Pronouncement

22.01.2026 15.04.2026 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vapi (hereinafter referred to as “ACIT”) vide order dated

30.10.2024 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18.

“1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 10,39,500/ made by the AO u/s 69A of the IT Act in contravention to the provision of section 2920 of the IT Act 1961 and without appreciating the facts that the addition had been made on the basis of incriminating details/documents recovered during the survey proceedings"

2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,68.09,490/ made by the AO u/s 69A of the IT Act in contravention to the provision of section 2920 of the IT Act 1961 and without appreciating the facts that the addition had been made on the basis of incriminating details/documents recovered during the survey proceedings"

3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.49,59,944/ made by the AO u/s 698 of the I.T Act in contravention to the provision of section 2920 of the IT Act 1961 and without appreciating the facts that the addition had been made on the basis of incriminating details/documents recovered during the survey proceedings.

4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the principles of "Human Probability Test le preponderance of probabilities which is applicable for Income Tax proceedings

5. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above ground of appeal, raise any new ground of appeal, if necessary, either before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal on the basis of submissions to be made.”

3. The assessee is an individual and a partner in various firms, namely M/s. Lotus Infra, M/s. M. Poonam Developers, M/s. M. Poonam , .

Construction and M/s. M. M. Enterprises. The assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.14,87,400/- A survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted .

on 21.02.2018 at the business premises of M/s. M. Poonam Developers, M/s. Lotus Infra and M/s. M. Poonam Construction During the course of the survey proceedings, certain documents were found and impounded which were alleged to contain details relating to the assessee. Based on these documents and after obtaining necessary .

approval from the competent authority, the Assessing Officer issued a , notice under section 148 dated 26.03.2021 In response to the said notice, the assessee filed the return of income on 24.04.2021 declaring the same income as originally returned. Thereafter, the assessment was , .

completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 19.03.2022 determining the total income at Rs.2,42,96,330/- While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs.10,39,500/- under section 69A on account of alleged on-money Rs.49,59,944/- under section 69B payment, Rs.1,68,09,490/- under section 69A on account of unexplained money, and on account of investment not recorded in the books of account.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessin