MADHVI RAMESHBHAI BAVLECHA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2372/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 July 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the impugned amount and examine the assessee's contentions, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2013-14 despite receiving rental income of Rs. 29,24,799/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on Form 26AS, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice and if the addition made by the AO was justified without proper appreciation of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 194-I,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar , Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 17.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT & ITA No.2372/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Income Tax Officer, Madhvi Rameshbhai Bavlecha, Vs. Ward 1(8), B-1994, Opp. Patel Park, Bhavnagar. Akshardhar Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar H.O, Bhavnagar-364001.

[PAN :AQYB9635 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, AR Respondent by: Shri Deependra Kumar , Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing ex-parte order which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, action of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act is not justified. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming addition of Rs.29,24,799/-in respect of alleged unaccounted transaction.

ITA No. 2372/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 2–

4.

Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. Such an act is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

8.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any

3.

The brief facts of the case are that information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had received rental income of Rs. 29,24,799/-, on which tax had been deducted at source under section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On verification of the e-filing portal, it was noticed that the assessee had not filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act, and a notice under section 148, after recording reasons and obtaining the requisite approval from the competent authority, was issued on 27.03.2021. The notice was duly served upon the assessee through Speed Post. However, no return of income was filed in response thereto. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued several notices under section 142(1) of the Act. On verification of Form 26AS, it was observed that an

ITA No. 2372/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 3– amount of Rs. 29,24,799/- had been reflected as received by the assessee from Svcprojects Pvt. Ltd. (TAN: VPNS00803F). The assessee, in response, submitted that the said transaction did not pertain to her and furnished a copy of his bank statement in support of his contention. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished and proceeded to complete the assessment by making the addition of Rs. 29,24,799/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities had not properly appreciated the submissions and documentary evidence available on record. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, requested that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case by producing all relevant documentary evidence before the Revenue Authorities.

6.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) on 10.06.2023, 10.04.2024 and 18.04.2024 to furnish the necessary details, clarifications and supporting evidence with regard to the transaction of Rs. 29,24,799/- reflected in Form 26AS. However, the assessee remained non- compliant and failed to place the requisite material on record. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), on the basis of the material available,

ITA No. 2372/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 4– upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal ex parte. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee shall furnish all the relevant bank statements and supporting documentary evidence to establish his claim regarding impugned transaction. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the impugned amount of Rs. 29,24,799/- reflected in Form 26AS and examining the assessee's contention in accordance with law. The assessee shall furnish all relevant bank statements, documentary evidence and any other supporting material in support of her claim. The Assessing Officer shall examine the same and pass an order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation during the assessment proceedings and shall comply with all notices issued by the Revenue Authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 16.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 16.07.2026 MV

ITA No. 2372/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →