ASHOKKUMAR CHHAGANBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case and furnish documents. A cost of ₹2,500 was imposed on the assessee for its negligent conduct.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer observed discrepancies in unsecured loans and repayment/investment transactions. The assessee failed to provide necessary details, leading to an assessment under Section 144.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer after failing to cooperate in earlier proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 144B,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot
Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 658/Rjt/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2022-23) Ashokkumar Chhaganbhai Mehta Income Tax Officer Ward - 1(1)(1) 305-A Convention Center Opp Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot ICICI Bank Yagnik Road Rajkot Gujrat 360001 Gujrat 360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ALVPM7081P (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24/06/2026 30/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement : ORDER Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2022-23, is directed against the order under section-250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 15.04.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 read with section144B of the Act, dated 13.03.2024.
ITA No.658/Rjt/2026 [ AY 2022-23 ] Ashokkumar Chhaganbhai Mehta v. ITO
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2022–23 declaring total income of ₹10,29,117. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that there were unsecured loans amounting to ₹1,96,00,824. The Assessing Officer further observed certain discrepancies relating to repayment/investment transactions amounting to ₹45,70,579. Since the assessee failed to properly comply with the notices and did not furnish necessary details before the Assessing Officer, the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act and the total income of the assessee was determined at ₹95,78,195. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that another opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case and furnish all relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that if the matter is restored, the assessee shall fully cooperate in the proceedings. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection to restoration of the matter; however, it was submitted that an appropriate cost may be imposed upon the assessee considering its conduct during the proceedings. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that in the instant case the assessment order was framed under
Page 2 of 3
ITA No.658/Rjt/2026 [ AY 2022-23 ] Ashokkumar Chhaganbhai Mehta v. ITO
Section 144 of the Act as the assessee failed to appear and properly participate before the lower authorities. In the interest of substantial justice, we consider it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
However, considering the negligent conduct of the assessee in not appearing before the authorities, we impose a cost of ₹2,500 upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. Proof of such payment shall be produced before the Assessing Officer at the time of hearing.
The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all relevant documents/details as may be required by the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member S राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 30/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot
Page 3 of 3
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Atiquiddin Shaikh vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Mr. Gurudev Singh vs. Kotak Mahindra BankMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026