SATYAM GOKUL CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 359/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 June 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not dealing with the merits of the case despite the assessee's non-appearance. Consequently, the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for three assessment years were dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to the assessee's inability to respond to hearing notices. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to deal with the merits of the case as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) is required to adjudicate the appeal on merits even in case of non-prosecution by the assessee, and whether the CIT(A) order violated Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 144,Section 69C,Section 37,Section 68,Section 153D,Section 250(6),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD DR. B.R.R. KUMAR VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 358,359 &360/AHD/2026 Assessment Year:2014-2015,2015-2016 & 2016-2017 Satyam Gokul Corporation Satyam House, B/H RajpathClube, SG Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054, Gujarat. [PAN:ABNFS2035B] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2),Ahmedabad AaykarBhawan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Parin Shah For the Respondent/Department : Shri Abhijit Date Conclusion of hearing : 11.06.2026 Pronouncement of order : 17.06.2026

O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are three appeals preferred by the same Assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. Since the appeals involved identical issues, the same were taken up together and are being disposed off by way of a common order.

ITA No. 358/AHD/2026 2. We would first take up ITA No. 358/AHD/2026 preferred by the Assessee challenging the Order, dated 19/09/2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Ahmedabad- 12 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 01/07/2021, passed

ITA No.358, 359 and 360/AHD/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], for the Assessment year 2014- 2015.

3.

After taking into consideration the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the Assessee, the delay of 70 days in filing the present appeal, which was caused on account of medical issue faced by the tax consultant, is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the following grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal:

1.

The order passed by lower authorities are invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. The proceedings u/s 153C of the Act are invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 3. The assessment order has been passed beyond a period of limitation and accordingly, same is required to be quashed. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.13409746/- u/s 69C of the Act. 5. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.42100/- u/s 37 of the Act. 6. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.3085000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 7. The approval u/s 153D of the Act is in mechanical manner and accordingly, assessment order is required to be quashed. 8. The order passed by CIT(A) is in violation of section 250(6) of the Act and accordingly, same is required to be quashed. 9. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D are unjustified. 10. Initiating proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified

4.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee pressed into service Ground No. 8 above. We have heard both the parties and have perused material on record in relation to Ground No. 8 raised by the Assessee. It is an admitted position that the Assessee was not able to respond to notices of hearing issued by the Learned CIT(A) and therefore, the appeal

ITA No.358, 359 and 360/AHD/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 preferred by the Assessee was dismissed on account of non- prosecution. We find that while dismissing the appeal the Learned CIT(A) has not dealt with the averments made in the statement of facts and the contentions raised by the Assessee in appeal before the Learned CIT(A). On perusal of the order impugned we find that the Learned CIT(A) has not returned any independent finding. In view of the provisions contained in Section 250(6) of the Act, irrespective of non-appearance of an Assessee before the Learned CIT(A), the Learned CIT(A) is required to deal with the issue raised by the Assessee on merits1. Therefore, we set aside the ex-parte Order, dated 19/09/2025, and restore the appeal back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the grounds raised by the Assessee before Learned CIT(A) as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal and file submissions/supporting documents before Learned CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is clarified that in case the Assessee fails to file submission and/or fails to enter appearance, the Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to adjudicate to grounds raised in appeal on merits based upon materials on record. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.8 raised by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes without returning any finding on merits. Since we have set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), Grounds No.1 to 7 are not adjudicated and Grounds No. 9 and 10 dismissed as being consequential in nature. All the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open.

5.

In terms of paragraph 4 above, appeal preferred by the Assessee is party allowed.

ITA No. 359 & 360/AHD/2026 6. We find that in facts and circumstances, identical to those prevailing in 1 CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. PremkumarArjundasLuthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) 25/04/2016, and Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax: [2000] 74 ITD 339 (Ahmedabad-ITAT

ITA No.358, 359 and 360/AHD/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 Assessment Year 2014-2015, the appeal preferred by the Assessee before the Learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 [arising from the Assessment Order, dated 01/07/2021] was dismissed for non=prosecution vide Order, dated 19/09/2025. Similarly, the appeal preferred by the Assessee before the Learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 [arising from the Assessment Order, dated 01/07/2021] was dismissed for non-prosecution vide Order, dated 19/09/2025. As a result, the Assessee has preferred ITA No.359/AMD/2026 and ITA No.360/AMD/2026 for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.

7.

Ground No.7 raised in ITA No.359/AMD/2026 [Assessment Year 2015- 2016] and Ground No.6 raised in ITA No.360/AMD/2026 [Assessment Year 2016-2017] are identical to Ground No.8 raised by the Assessee in appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. Therefore, adopting the reasoning given while adjudicating appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, we set-aside, the impugned Orders, each dated 19/02/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 with directions identical to those given in Paragraph 4 above while setting-aside order passed by the Learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.7 raised in ITA No.359/AMD/2026 [Assessment Year 2015-2016] and Ground No.6 raised in ITA No.360/AMD/2026 [Assessment Year 2016-2017] are treated as allowed for statistical purposes without returning any finding on merits. Since we have set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), balance grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous at this stage. All the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open.

8.

In terms of paragraph 7 above, ITA No.359/AMD/2026 [Assessment Year 2015-2016] and ITA No.360/AMD/2026 [Assessment Year 2016- 2017] preferred by the Assessee are party allowed.

ITA No.358, 359 and 360/AHD/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

9.

In conclusion, the three appeals preferred by the Assessee are partly allowed.

The order is pronounced on 17.06.2026

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

िदनांक Dated :17.06.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad; True Copy H.C. PS

ITA No.358, 359 and 360/AHD/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 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 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →