SHRI BHARAT KANTILLAL PARECHA,AT GHUNTU, TALUKA AND DIST. MORBI vs. THE ITO WARD- 1, MORBI, MORBI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, noting that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the assessee's submissions.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2017-18, challenging the reassessment order and the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider written submissions and violated principles of natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by considering all submissions and adhering to natural justice principles.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 149,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot
Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 25/RJT/2026 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year: (2017-18) Bharat Kantilal Parecha, ITO Ward 1 Morbi Harinagar Society, at- Ghuntu, Aayakar Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, बनाम/ Taluka-Morbi, Mahendranagar, National Highway-8-A, At Lalpar, Vs. Rajkot - 363642 Gujrat Morbi, Gujarat, 363642 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BKXPP7551H (Appellant) (Respondent)
िनधा�रती की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Fenil H. Mehta, AR राज� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/06/2026 आदेश /ORDER Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 09.03.2023.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. That the learned Assessing Officer has grievously erred in law in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the notice issued under section 148 is barred by limitation under section 149 of the Act read with paragraphs 107 to 110 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Civil Appeal No 8629 of 2024) and allied matters.
That the learned Assessing Officer has grievously erred in law in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the notice issued under section 148 is issued without generation of a valid Identification Document Number the mandatory instructions (DIN) in contravention of mandatory instructions contained in CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019.
That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned A.O. in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 32,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without following the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.
That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal violating principles of the natural justice.
That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw above ground of appeal. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has submitted detailed written submission, but the same was not considered by Ld. CIT(A) at all. Besides, the assessee wants to submit additional evidences before Ld. CIT(A), and wants to raise technical ground, also, therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the First Appellate Authority.
The ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is without considering the written submission of assessee, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). Hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 22/06/2026. Sd/- SSd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member Rajkot Date: 22/06/2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��थ�/ The Respondent आयकर आयु�/ CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील)/ The CIT(A) िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
By Order
Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Bamaniya vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Ministry Of Home AffairsMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Patidar vs. Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Lokesh vs. Bank Of Maharashtra Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Arvind Lunawat vs. Axis Bank LimitedMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
