##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 2303/Ahd/2025 & CO No. 100/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Income-Tax Officer, Vasani Infra structure, Vs.

Ward (3)(3)(5), A/6, Sabri Kutir Bungalows, Ahmedabad Sarkari Vasahat Road,

Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat -380015

[PAN : AAIFV 1733 H]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent & Cross-Objector Revenue represented by : Shri Jai Singh, CIT-DR &

Shri C. Darni Nath, Sr. DR Assessee represented by: Shri Vartik Choksi, AR

Date of Hearing 16.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2026

O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the corresponding Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.09.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] under section 250 of

the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

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

“(1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in calculating the number of days available before the AO for completion of the order passed u/s 153(2) of

the IT Act, 1961.

(2) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69A of the IT. Act, 1961 amounting to

Rs. 18,16,00,121/-.

(3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the facts of the case that the department had seized the documents (during the course of

ITA Nos. 2303 & 2304 and CO No. 100 & 101/Ahd/2025 Assessee: Vasani Infrastructure Asst.Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

- 2–

search & seizure at Venus Group) which clearly showed receipt of on-money of Rs.18,16,00,121/- from the assessee.

(4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by relying on the decisions which are not relevant, especially reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT(1992) ITR 321(SC).

(5) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by stating that no further appeal was filed by the Revenue against the orders of Ld. CIT(A) in the following cases of other co-owners of the same land, which are enumerated below along with the corresponding ITA numbers for the appeals filed by the Revenue

against the orders of Ld. CIT(A), which are pending in ITAT:

(6) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal.”

3. Ground No. 5 – These Revenue’s appeals have already been dismissed by the Tribunal owing to low tax effect.

4. On receipt of notice in the Revenue’s appeal, the assessee has filed Cross Objection bearing CO No.100/Ahd/2025 for AY 2010-11, wherein the following

grounds have been raised:-

“1. In the law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the validity of the assessment order, failing to appreciate that the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated

19.07.2018 is bad in law, void ab initio, and lacks jurisdiction.

2. In the law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not holding that since the assessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of incriminating material/documents seized during a search conducted on a third party (Venus Group) the Assessing Officer was mandatorily required to assume jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act, and

ITA Nos. 2303 & 2304 and CO No. 100 & 101/Ahd/2025 Assessee: Vasani Infrastructure Asst.Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

- 3–

consequently, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 are void ab initio and bad in law.”

5. Briefly stated facts, as culled out from the records for AY 2010-11, are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring Nil income. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing cons