ASHABEN VINODBHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(1) , SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication after verifying details and providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee made an investment in immovable property and did not file a return. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings and made an addition of Rs. 80,10,605/- on account of unexplained investment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and whether the addition on account of unexplained investment was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
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 05.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order u/s. 250. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subjec
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
