BHARATKUMAR FATESINH THAKOR,VADODARA vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(7), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1623/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 September 2026AY 2018-196 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that filing a second appeal against the same assessment order after the first appeal was decided is not permissible under the Act. The assessee's remedy for the non-disposal of the rectification application would have been a writ petition, not a fresh appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to a discrepancy in salary income. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order, which was dismissed by the CIT(A). Subsequently, the assessee filed a rectification application and then a second appeal against the same assessment order, which was also dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay and maintainability.

What were the issues?

Whether a second appeal can be filed against the same assessment order after the first appeal has been decided, and the proper remedy for non-disposal of a rectification application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 17,Section 246A,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI TAPAS RAM MISRA

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Goyal, AR
For Respondent: Smt. Deeba Farhat, SR-DR
Hearing: 10.08.2026Pronounced: 01.09.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 23.04.2026 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 11.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,01,520/- on account of salary income. The case of the assessee was

ITA No.1623/Ahd/2026 Bharatkumar Fatesinh Thakor Vs ITO, AY- 2018-19 2 reopened on the basis of information received by the AO that the assessee had received total salary of Rs. 15,65,436/- from his employer GE Power, whereas salary income disclosed in the ITR was Rs. 2,01,520/- only. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2022. In the course of assessment, the assessee had explained that the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made by the employer towards LIC annuity, which was not taxable. The AO, however, noticed that the employer GE Power had treated the LIC annuity payment as part of salary and deducted TDS thereon. According to the AO, the payment made by the employer on behalf of the employee was a perquisite covered u/s. 17 of the Act. The AO had accordingly completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 22.02.2023 at total income of Rs.14,92,302.

3.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 13.07.2023 and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee had filed a rectification application before the Ld. CIT(A) on 15.01.2024 which were not decided by him. Hence, the assessee had filed a fresh appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 03.10.2025 against the same assessment order which decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23.04.2026. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed this appeal for the reason that there was delay of 896 days in filing of the appeal, which was not condoned by him. Th

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.04.2026, the assessee in appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

1.

The impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and bad in law as well as on facts. The order has been passed without proper

ITA No.1623/Ahd/2026 Bharatkumar Fatesinh Thakor Vs ITO, AY- 2018-19 3

appreciation of facts, applicable law, and binding judicial precedents. The same deserves to be quashed 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte without granting a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing. This constitutes a clear violation of audi alteram partem, rendering the order void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the appellant on merits, which is a statutory duty under the Act. Summary dismissal without reasoned adjudication is unsustainable 4. The appeal has been dismissed on limitation without issuing a show-cause notice or granting opportunity to explain delay or seek condonation. This action is contrary to law 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds rather than deciding the matter on merits. Such approach defeats the cause of justice 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that sufficient and reasonable cause existed for delay (if any), which ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to dispose of the rectification application within the statutory period, which has caused serious prejudice and vitiates subsequent proceedings 8. The impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and absence of reasoning, making it a non-speaking order and unsustainable. 9. The reassessment order itself is bad in law as it was passed without considering the reply and evidence furnished by the appellant and without granting proper opportunity 10. The entire proceedings are vitiated due to jurisdictional errors, violation of mandatory provisions, and procedural irregularities, rendering the impugned orders void 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any ground at or before the time of hearing 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any ground at or before the time of hearing.

5.

Shri Rajiv Goyal, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in rejecting the second appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay. He explained that the delay was for the

ITA No.1623/Ahd/2026 Bharatkumar Fatesinh Thakor Vs ITO, AY- 2018-19 4 reason that the rectification application filed by the assessee was not disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee before dismissing the appeal. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merits.

6.

Smt. Deeba Farhat, the Ld. SR-DR submitted that the assessee could not have filed two appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) against the same assessment order. She submitted that if the rectification application of the assessee filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was not disposed off, then the proper remedy was to approach the Tribunal at that stage. According to the Ld. Sr. DR, the second appeal of the assessee was not maintainable and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the same.

7.

We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee had filed initial appeal against the assessment order dated 22.03.2023 before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.03.2023, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.07.2023. A copy of this order has been brought on record by the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for the reason that no compliance was made before him and the assessee had not brought on record any material in support of the grounds as taken. If the assessee had any grievance with order dated 13.07.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A), the proper course of action was to file an appeal before the ITAT at that stage. The assessee, however, chose to file a rectification application before the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.12.2024 which was not disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) within the statutory time period. If so, the proper course of action for the assessee was to approach the High Court in a writ petition seeking direction against non-disposal of the

ITA No.1623/Ahd/2026 Bharatkumar Fatesinh Thakor Vs ITO, AY- 2018-19 5 application u/s. 154 of the Act. The assessee had filed a fresh appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 03.10.2025 against the same assessment order dated 22.03.2023, which was not permissible as per law. Under the provision of section 246A of the Act, the assessee is not empowered to file multiple independent appeals against the same order. The scheme of the Act does not provide for filing separate appeals against the same assessment order and the second appeal against the same assessment order is barred. Therefore, the second appeal filed by the assessee after the disposal of the first appeal against the same assessment order was infructuous and is liable to be dismissed out-rightly. Even if the first appeal was dismissed for non-compliance, it does not revive a fresh right of appeal against the same assessment order. The statutory scheme under section 246A read with sections 249 and 250 contemplates an appeal against an assessment order; it does not provide for two successive independent appeals against the same assessment order. Since the assessee was not entitled to file second appeal against the same assessment order, the present appeal filed by the assessee against the second order of CIT(A) is non-maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The assessee will be free to pursue the matter against the first appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) as per law.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 01/09/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (TAPAS RAM MISRA) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 01st September, 2026 (True Copy) Neelesh, Sr. PS

ITA No.1623/Ahd/2026 Bharatkumar Fatesinh Thakor Vs ITO, AY- 2018-19 6

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →