JAYESHKUMAR ARJANBHAI LATHIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(4), SURAT

ITA 989/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 August 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the matter deserved fresh consideration due to the intervening medical emergency and the desire to submit further documents. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared long-term capital gains from the sale of shares, which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as unexplained income and added to the total income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action. The assessee's authorized representative faced a medical emergency, hindering effective representation before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of long-term capital gains as unexplained income and whether the case should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of adequate opportunity and new evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c),Section 10(38),Section 139,Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 17.08.2026

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by the order of first appeal dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 28.12.2016 passed by learned ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Surat [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, Jayeshkumar Arjanbhai Lathiya

1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject. the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →