OMKAR DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 118/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 August 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the AO's addition was prima facie connected to the reopening, the Tribunal found that complete evidence was not filed and no compliance was made before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to the purchase of an immovable property. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 2,81,57,851/- on account of unexplained advances, which the assessee claimed was not the subject matter of reopening. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO was beyond the scope of reopening and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present its case before the appellate authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR
For Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr.DR
Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] dated 15.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”).

2.

There was a delay of 294 days in filing of this appeal. A condonation application has been filed by the Assessee explaining the reasons for delay. It has been submitted that the Assessee had closed its business

ITA No. 118/AHD/2026, AY-2017-18 Omkar Developers Vs. ITO 2 operations and was no longer carrying on any business activity. The last return filed by the Assessee was for A.Y. 2023-24. As a result, the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) could not be complied with and the Assessee also did not check the ITBA portal and was not aware of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). As a result, there was delay in filing of the appeal.

2.1. Considering the explanation of the Assessee, the delay caused in filing of the appeal is condoned.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 07.09.2018 declaring Nil income. On the basis of the information received that the Assessee had purchased an immovable property during the year for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, the case of the Assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. The assessment was completed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 29.03.2022 at a total income of Rs. 2,81,57,851/-.

4.

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 the impugned order and the appeal of the Assessee was dismissed.

5.

Now, the Assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds were raised in this appeal:

“1) The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice.

2) Assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is bad & illegal as no addition is made for reason other than for which assessment is reopened.

ITA No. 118/AHD/2026, AY-2017-18 Omkar Developers Vs. ITO 3 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.2,81,57,850/- U/S 68 of the Act.

4) The appellant Craves liberty to add , amend, alter OR modify all OR any grounds of appeal before final appeal.”

6.

Shri M.S. Chhajed, the Ld. AR of the Assessee, submitted at the outset, that no compliance could be made by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, he had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee without adjudicating the grounds taken by the Assessee on merits. He explained that non-compliance was for the reason that business activity of the Assessee was closed and the notices sent on the e-mail were not checked. He, therefore, requested that the Assessee may be given another opportunity of being heard, by setting aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 6.1. The Ld. AR further contended that though the case was reopened to examine the investment in immovable property, the AO had made an addition in respect of unexplained advances which was not subject matter of reopening and, therefore, the assessment was bad in law.

7.

Per contra, Shri Deependra Kumar, Ld. Sr.DR, submitted that the Assessee did not make full compliance before the AO and no compliance at all was made before the Ld. CIT(A). According to the Ld. Sr.DR, the issue of advance was inter-connected with the purchase of the immovable property for which the case was reopened and, therefore, he defended the order of the AO. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. It is found that the case of the Assessee was reopened to examine the investment made by the Assessee in purchase of immovable property of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- during the year. From the copy of reply filed before the AO, as brought on record

ITA No. 118/AHD/2026, AY-2017-18 Omkar Developers Vs. ITO 4 in the paper book, it is found that the source of investment in the property was explained to be out of partner's capital account as well as loans and advances, in support of which certain evidences were also brought on record. The AO, however, was not satisfied with the explanation regarding source of advance of Rs. 2,81,57,851/- and accordingly, he had made the addition in this respect. Prima facie, it appears that, the addition made by the AO was connected with the issue on which the case was reopened. At the same time, the complete evidence in respect of advances was not filed before the AO and no compliance was made before the Ld. CIT(A) at all. In the interest of justice, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to allow another opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee is directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings and furnish the necessary evidence in support of the grounds as taken. The Ld. CIT(A) will have the liberty to call for the remand report of the AO on the fresh evidences filed before him and thereafter he is free to adjudicate the grounds taken by the Assessee on merits as per law.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 03/08/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:– 03rd August, 2026 DS,PS

ITA No. 118/AHD/2026, AY-2017-18 Omkar Developers Vs. ITO 5

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� ( ) / The CIT(A)- अपील 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध , , अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//

सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad

1.

Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with file) : 08.07.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the : 08.07.2026 Dictating Member. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 08.07.2026 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating : 08.07.2026 Member for pronouncement. 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar : for signature on the order. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order :

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →