SHRI KISHAN BATUKBHAI CHAUHAN,MAHUVA vs. THE ITO , WARD -1(9), BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 526/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 June 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee. The assessee is directed to utilize this final opportunity to present all necessary documents and evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance after multiple hearing opportunities. The assessee had made additions of Rs. 48,79,370/- on account of unsecured credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and confirming additions without considering evidence. The primary issue is granting the assessee a final opportunity to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCHES, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCHES, AHMEDABAD Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member

ITA No: 526/AHD/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Shri Kishan Batukbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Chauhan, s Ward 1(9), 13 Kamal Park, J.K. Bhavnagar Nagar Near Shamla Park, Mahuva 364290, Gujarat (Respondent) PAN: AVZPC7464J (Appellant) Assessee Represented : Sh. Mohit Balani, AR : Sh. Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR Revenue Represented Date of hearing : 11.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 18.06.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER, T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JM:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2022-23.

I.T.A No. 526/AHD/2026 2 Shri Kishan Batukbhai Chauhan Vs. ITO

2.

Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 31.12.2022 declaring total income of Rs.3,84,950/-. The assessee is an Authorized Stamp Vendor of the State Government and engaged in document and registry work. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and addition of Rs.48,79,370/- made on account of unsecured credits from 13 parties. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not establish identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, thereby, the Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) made addition of Rs.48,79,370/- and demanded tax thereon.

3.

Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who had given four opportunities of hearing between 14.08.2025 to 11.12.2025. As there was no response, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte.

4.

Aggrieved against the same, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:- 1 Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the impugned order ex-parte. 2 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹48,79,370/- u/s 68 of the Act. 3 The Learned CIT(A) erred in law by failing to consider that the Ld. AO did not properly appreciate or consider various pieces of evidence and supporting documents available on record during the assessment proceedings. Furthermore, the Ld. AO failed to correctly interpret and apply the relevant facts and legal provisions in their proper perspective. 4 The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law by passing the order for levied of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D of the act

I.T.A No. 526/AHD/2026 3 Shri Kishan Batukbhai Chauhan Vs. ITO

5 The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts of the case in initiating penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act. 8 Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or to withdraw / delete any of the grounds of appeal at any time, on or before the hearing of appeal. 5. At the outset, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee filed before us, a notarized affidavit explaining that the case was entrusted to a Tax Consultant Mr. Chinta Mehta. However, he was suffering from Cancer and other medical ailments. Thus, he has not verified the hearing notices given by Ld. CIT(A). Thus, non- compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason stated above and requested to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, so that assessee undertakes to file all necessary documents and details before Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits of the case. 6. Ld. Sr. DR appearing for the revenue strongly opposed the contention of the assessee and requested to impose cost for the non- compliance before Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused materials available on record. Since the assessee failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A) and undertakes to file all necessary details, if one more opportunity of hearing is given to the assessee. Considering the above submission of the assessee and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to impose the cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Department within two weeks of receipt of the copy of this order and production on receipt for Rs.5,000/-, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should make use of this final

I.T.A No. 526/AHD/2026 4 Shri Kishan Batukbhai Chauhan Vs. ITO

opportunity and produce all relevant materials, evidences and documents for passing appellate order in accordance with provisions of law. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 18-06-2026.

Sd/- sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 18/06/2026 Mittali आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →