Aditi Thapar Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Assessee, an individual earning from salary, rent & capital gains, filed a return of ₹11.73 lakh. The AO made three additions – (i) ₹44.68 lakh u/s 68 for alleged bogus LTCG on shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd., (ii) ₹51.31 lakh u/s 69 for unexplained investment in property, and (iii) ₹7.16 lakh u/s 69A for unexplained cash payments toward credit card dues. Despite Assessee furnishing contract notes, demat and bank statements, and confirmations of agriculturist lenders, AO treated all transactions as non-genuine. CIT(A), NFAC confirmed the additions, terming the order as justified and the explanations unsubstantiated.
Tribunal observed that CIT(A)’s order was cryptic and non-speaking, with no analysis of the evidences or submissions placed on record. Relying on Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT (131 ITR 451), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375), and CIT v. Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381), it held that appellate authorities must pass reasoned orders reflecting due application of mind. The absence of such reasoning rendered the order violative of natural justice and required de novo adjudication.
ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration, directing that:
- All submissions and evidences be duly examined,
- Adequate opportunity of hearing be given, and
- A reasoned and speaking order be passed in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed for statistical purposes – matter remanded to CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
