ANVISTAR TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 735/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without serving notice by post on non-compliance to e-notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication with an opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to follow principles of natural justice by not serving notice by post on non-compliance to e-notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adhering to principles of natural justice and proper service of notice. Whether reassessment proceedings were justified and if additions under Section 68 were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 148A(d),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Gheewala, CA
For Respondent: Shri J.K. Chandnani, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 17.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.735/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/s. Anvistar Tradelink Private Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, Office No.103, Shiv Ratna Complex Vs. Majura Gate, Thakrodhwar Soc Varachha Road, Surat Surat PAN: AANCA8385J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishore Gheewala, CA Respondent by : Shri J.K. Chandnani, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 08.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.07.2026 O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 28.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2018-19.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in adopting the easiest way of dismissing the appeal ex party in gross violation of principles of natural justice & audi alteram partem. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has miserably failed to understand and appreciate that he was duty bound to serve notice by post on noncompliance to e notices instead of dismissing the appeal ex party which has caused gross injustice to the appellant due to dismissal of appeal. 3. The invocation of Sec. 147, by the Ld. A.O is unjustified and illegal as no reasonable person could have jumped to the conclusion of escapement of income on the basis of the material, then available with the Ld. A.Ο.

ITA No.735/SRT/2025 M/s. Anvistar Tradelink Private Limited 4. The reassessment proceedings being based on erroneous presumptions, are liable to be quashed as bad in law and illegal. 5. The learned AO has grossly erred in passing the order u/s 148A(d) for re-opening appellant's case, in spite of the very base, on which the proceedings have been initiated, of the appellant having transactions with M/s Antique Exim Private Limited, having turned out to be erroneous. 6. Without prejudice to above, the learned AO has also grossly erred in not believing the submission of the appellant, by treating appellant's genuine sales to impugned 8 parties, amounting of Rs. 6,26,76,034/- as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the income tax act, 1961, in spite of fact that the appellant has discharged the onus of providing identity, genuineness transaction etc. 7. The Ld. A.O. has miserably failed to understand and appreciate that the appellant's impugned sales have already been shown as income by the appellant, and therefore, making the addition thereof once again under whatsoever pretext amounts to double taxation of one and the same transaction only, which is strictly prohibited under the law. 8. The Ld. A.O. has also grossly erred in making the addition aggregating to Rs.33,49,692/-, in 5 cases, of the amount in excess of the amount mentioned in the SCN. 9. The learned AO has also grossly erred in bringing to tax unbelievable, unrealistic income ignoring altogether "Real Income Theory". 10. Without prejudice to the above, the impugned order of the CIT(A) and the Assessment Order of the Ld. A.O are grossly unjust, rendering the matter liable to be quashed as bad in law & illegal in the interest of justice. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the present grounds of Appeal.” 3. The assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in diamond business. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs.11,02,210/-. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022. Notices u/s 142(1) & 143(2) of the Act were issued on 13.10.2022, 31.10.2022 & 21.11.2022. In response to the notices the assessee filed submissions in part and a show cause notice was also issued on 23.02.2023, in response to the same the assessee filed the submissions. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) made the additions of Rs.6,26,76,034/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit and thus assessed the

ITA No.735/SRT/2025 M/s. Anvistar Tradelink Private Limited total income of the assessee at Rs.6,37,78,239/- u/s 143 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in adopting the easiest way of dismissing the appeal ex-parte which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice & audi alteram partem. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to understand and appreciate that he was duty bound to serve notice by post on non-compliance to e-notices instead of dismissing the appeal ex-parte which has caused gross injustice to the assessee due to dismissal of appeal.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A), instead of serving notice to the assessee by post on non-compliance to e-notices, dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Hence, it is appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated:17.07.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S.

ITA No.735/SRT/2025 M/s. Anvistar Tradelink Private Limited

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard File By order,

Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Surat Bench

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →