BINAL HIRAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(2), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 869/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 August 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed additions made by the AO. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the proceedings due to being outside India and not receiving email notifications.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice, and whether the assessee should be given a chance to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 44AA,Section 44AB,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AR
Hearing: 29/07/2026Pronounced: 03/08/2026

आदेश/O R D E R

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi dated 20/01/2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 47,86,000/- made by the Assessing Officer

ITA No.869/Ahd/2026 Binal Hiral Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 2 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,25,605/- on account of alleged failure to maintain books of accounts and get them audited under section 44AA/44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is ex-parte and without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or modify the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A). He has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order of the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) observing that the assessee has not represented before him, however, without giving any findings on the merits.

4.

The Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that since the assessee during the relevant period was not in India and he could not take notice of the emails sent by the Ld. CIT(A) and was not aware of the ongoing proceedings, hence, could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has brought our attention to Page 2 of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) has given ten opportunities to the assessee to represent and files submissions, but, the assessee was non-responsive.

ITA No.869/Ahd/2026 Binal Hiral Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 3 6. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, has submitted that since the assessee was not aware of the proceedings, hence, could not represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). He has further submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

Considering the rival submission, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served, if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee, however, can be burdened with some reasonable cause for non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we direct the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund as cost. Subject to the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits of the case. The assessee will remain vigilant and will properly pursue his case before the Ld. CIT(A) and regularly check his email etc. The assessee will furnish proof of deposit of costs before the Ld. CIT(A).

8.

With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Prasad Sinha) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 03/08/2026 Tanmay, Sr. P.S. TRUE COPY

ITA No.869/Ahd/2026 Binal Hiral Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 4

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� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad

1.

Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with the file)) : 29.07 2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the : 31.07.2026 Dictating Member. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 03.08.2026 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating : Member for pronouncement. 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the : 03.08.2026 Sr.P.S./P.S. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 03.08.2026 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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →