FAISAL IQBAL MISTRY,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

ITA 2130/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2026AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities for the assessee to furnish details and explanations regarding the source of capital introduction/debit balance in partnership firms. However, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to provide the required details and supporting evidence. Consequently, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition. Before the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel admitted the inability to furnish necessary documents before the lower authorities and requested another opportunity. Considering the assessee's request for an opportunity to present evidence and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents, including bank statements and explanations for cash deposits, and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Faisal Iqbal Mistry, is an individual and a partner in two firms. For Assessment Year 2010-2011, the assessee did not file a return by the due date, leading to a notice under Section 148. A return was later filed declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO), under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, made an addition of Rs. 49,17,135/- on account of unexplained capital introduction/debit balance in partnership firms, finding the assessee's explanation unsatisfactory. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who confirmed the addition. The assessee has now appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming the addition made by the AO without considering online submissions, rendering the ex-parte order bad in law, as per Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming the AO's action in adding Rs. 49,17,135/- on account of capital introduction/debit balance in partnership firms, treating it as unexplained, as per Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: - The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering online submissions, making it bad in law. - The addition of Rs. 49,17,135/- is erroneous and should be deleted. - The assessee could not furnish necessary details and supporting documents before the lower authorities and requests one more opportunity to substantiate the source of the amount. Revenue's contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue, but it notes that the CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition based on the material available on record after the assessee failed to furnish requisite details and supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2010- 2011. ITA No.2130/AHD/2025, AY-2010-11 Faisal Iqbal Mistry - 2–

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Appeal:-

1 The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition made by the Ld. A

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →