KISHAN SUMNABHAI JIVRAJANI ,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1)(1),, RAJKOT

ITA 311/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 September 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard and allowed to produce all relevant supporting documents to substantiate the purchases. The Assessing Officer is to examine the issue afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the evidence furnished by the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of the genuineness of the purchases but remanded it for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kishan Sumnabhai Jivrajani, filed appeals before the ITAT, Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Years 2021-22 (ITA No. 687/Rjt/2026) and 2022-23 (ITA No. 311/Rjt/2026). The appeals were against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. For AY 2021-22, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 18,56,90,202/- on account of alleged bogus purchases from Dhananjay Hari Bhau Dake, a salaried employee, to whom no payment was made. The assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal. The issues in both appeals were identical and interconnected. The assessee's representative stated that the case was not properly represented before the NFAC and sought an opportunity to substantiate the purchases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should grant the assessee an effective opportunity to substantiate purchases amounting to Rs. 18,56,90,202/- made from Dhananjay Hari Bhau Dake, considering the assessee's claim of inadequate representation before the NFAC. (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and opportunity to be heard). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the case was not properly represented before the NFAC and requested an opportunity to substantiate the purchases by producing supporting documents. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below, contending that the transactions were found to be bogus and the assessee failed to establish their genuineness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR)
Hearing: 28/09/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned these appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 687/Rjt/2026 relates to Assessment Year 2021-22 and is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’] dated 17.07.2026, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] dated 27.12.2022 an

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →