SHRI JAYANTILAL VADILAL PATEL ,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1919/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 July 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide requisite details to the CIT(A) despite several opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with the assessee directed to submit all relevant documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance despite multiple opportunities. The Assessing Officer had made additions under Section 68, on account of short-term capital gains, and disallowed long-term capital loss.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessee's non-compliance warranted such dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 148,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, AR
For Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 22.07.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21.

ITA No. 1919/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.46,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loan from M/s Kabir Enterprises. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,07,142/- made by the Assessing Officer as short term capital gain. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of long term capital loss of Rs.4,43,196/- 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not appreciating the documents, explanations and evidences placed on record during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) and u/s 270A of the Act. 8. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or to withdraw / delete any of the grounds of appeal at any time, on or before the hearing of appeal.

3.

The facts of the case are that the appellant filed the return of income for the Assessment Year under consideration in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 24.03.2024, declaring a total income of Rs.29,28,660/-. The case was selected for faceless assessment on the basis of information available

ITA No. 1919/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– on the Insight Portal under the e-Verification Scheme, indicating high- value transactions relating to the purchase and sale of immovable properties during the relevant previous year. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee was issued various statutory notices, in response to which all the requisite details, documentary evidences and explanations were furnished before the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted that all the transactions relating to the issues under scrutiny were duly explained and supported by relevant documents. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and made an addition of Rs.66,50,338/- under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made additions on account of Short-Term Capital Gain and disallowed the claim of Long-Term Capital Loss. Further, penalty proceedings under sections 115BBE, 271AAC(1) and 270A of the Act were initiated.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A), after issuing several notices fixing the appeal for hearing, dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-compliance and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6.

On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded several opportunities of hearing on 03.07.2025, 21.07.2025, 06.08.2025, 22.08.2025, 17.09.2025 and 14-10.2025 to furnish details,

ITA No. 1919/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 4– clarifications and explanations to substantiate it claim. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained non compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliances will be made and all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all relevant bank statements and supporting documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall comply with the notices issued by the Revenue authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

7.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.07.2026. S /- Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 22.07.2026 MV

ITA No. 1919/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 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�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

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

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →