BHARATKUMAR G PATEL ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO WARD - 3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 568/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 September 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, it was fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. This decision was based on the fact that the matter had gone completely unrepresented before the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the assessee to submit all relevant details and submissions without undue delay or seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided; the primary decision was to remand the matter for a proper hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bharatkumar G Patel, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi) dated 04.12.2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal challenged an addition of Rs. 68,11,334/- made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144 as the assessee failed to provide complete and satisfactory replies to the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite receiving multiple hearing notices, leading to an ex-parte decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish relevant documents and make submissions, given the ex-parte nature of the proceedings before the CIT(A) and the assessee's non-representation. Assessee's contention: The counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment application praying for the restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer (though the prayer was for restoration to CIT(A) in the operative part of the judgment) to enable the assessee to furnish all relevant documents and obtain a proper assessment. The assessee argued that the matter went unrepresented before the CIT(A). Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the restoration of the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri Tapas Ram Misra

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. D.R.s

PER TAPAS RAM MISRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 04.12.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. The assessee has challenged the assessment order wherein an addition of Rs.68,11,334/- was made u/s. 69 of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 because the

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →