HARSHIL BIPINBHAI GANATRA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2618/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 July 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) proceeded on an incorrect understanding that the assessment was framed under Section 144, whereas it was under Section 143(3). Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against an assessment order. The CIT(A) passed an order allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and remanding the case back to the Assessment Unit. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in assuming the assessment was under Section 144 when it was under Section 143(3).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly exercised its powers by remanding the case when the assessment order was not passed under Section 144, and whether the principle of natural justice was violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 251(1)(a),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD SHRI DR. B.R.R. KUMAR VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2618/AHD/2025 (Assessment Year:2022-2023) Harshil Bipinbhai Ganatra B-403, Sai Avenue, Nr. S.M. Patel School, Rajula Road, Bavla, Ahmedabad-382220, Gujarat [PAN:BQFPG7636A] …………. Appellant Vs The Income Tax Office, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad AaykarBhavan, Prahladnagar Road, Vejalpur Ahmedabad-380015, Gujarat …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Bhavik Khandediya, : For the Respondent/Department Shri Arvind Kumar Namdeo, Sr.DR Date : Conclusion of hearing 06.07.2026 : Pronouncement of order 07.07.2026

O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 03/11/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)'] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had allowed for statistical purposes the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 21/03/2024, passed under Section144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2022- 2023.

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ERRONEOUS EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED UPON BY THE ACT BY REMANDING THE CASE BACK TO THE ASSESSMENT UNIT 1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by exercising jurisdiction beyond

ITA 2618/AHD/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 the powers conferred under the act ie by wrongful invocation of proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act and remanding the matter back to the Assessment Unit, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment order dated 21.03.2024 has not been passed under section 144 of the Act by the Assessment Unit and thereby ignoring the important concept of "Substance over Form” VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE-AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (JUSTICE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE DONE BUT MANIFESTLY SEEN TO BE DONE): 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law while passing the appellate order with a pre-determined mind set thereby denying the appellant a "AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM i.e Justice should not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done", an important principle of Natural Justice, by upholding the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act by observing that the appellant has not filed any evidences during the course of assessment proceedings (para 6.1, page 33 of the Appellate order); notwithstanding the fact that all the submissions made by the appellant on 06.03.2024, 07.03.2024 as well as on 15.03.2024 during the course of assessment proceedings are itself reflected on the face of the assessment order (para 2 page 2, para 3.2 page 6, and at para 4 page 11 of the assessment order). Since the appellate order suffers from the deformity of bias order, the appellant humbly requests your Honour to quash the appellate order on this ground alone NON-ADJUDICATION OF LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE LD. CITIAL 3. Because the Ld. CIT (A) further erred in law while passing Appellate Order for fresh assessment/adjudication without adjudicating the legal grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before the Ld. CIT (A) in appeal form 35. PASSING OF A NON-SPEAKING ORDER BY LD. CIT(A): 4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law by passing a non-speaking order and without considering the appellant's exhaustive submission on merits of the case.” 3. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. We find that the Learned CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order holding as under: “6. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Computation of income and demand notice u/s 456 of the Act is attached. Penalty proceeding u/S. 272A(1)(d) and u/s.270A for under-reporting of income is being initiated separately.” 4. During the course of hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee sought setting-aside of the impugned order passed

ITA 2618/AHD/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 by the Learned CIT(A). It was submitted by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee that the Learned CIT(A) had failed to appreciate that the Assessment Order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act and not under Section 144 of the Act. Therefore, the power to set-aside the Assessment Order has been incorrectly exercised by the Learned CIT(A).

5.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that no prejudice was cost to the Assessee.

6.

Having considered on perusal of the record, we find that the assessment was framed on the Assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act and the Learned CIT(A) proceeded on incorrect understanding that the assessment was framed under Section 144 of the Act. Therefore, accepting the submissions advanced by the Learned Aurthorised Representative for the Assessee, we set-aside the impugned order, dated 03/11/2025, passed by the Leaned CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the same afresh as per law. Thus, Ground No. 1 and 3 raised by the Assessee are allowed. Since the impugned order has been set-aside, Ground No.2 & 4 raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

7.

In result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 07.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. B.R.R. Kumar) (Rahul Chaudhary) Vice President Judicial Member

िदनांक Dated : 07.07.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad; True Copy H.C. PS

ITA 2618/AHD/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु�/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड�फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →