NAVANITBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHUVA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 1194/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 October 2026AY 2014-156 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of natural justice and noting that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, at the risk and responsibility of the assessee. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation. Regarding the penalty appeal, the Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices, noting that the AO had taken a proper view in imposing the penalty despite multiple instances of non-compliance. The penalty appeal was dismissed. The quantum appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, filed his return for AY 2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 6,50,140. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147, citing information about cash deposits of Rs. 1,54,00,000. Notices under Section 148 and 142(1) were issued, but the assessee remained non-compliant. The AO completed an ex-parte assessment under Section 144, adding Rs. 1,54,00,000 under Section 69A as unexplained deposits. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal as time-barred by 273 days. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT. Separately, a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices during assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's contention of non-receipt of notices due to change of residence and former consultant's email ID being used, and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural compliance). Assessee's Contention: The delay in filing the first appeal was due to bonafide reasons, including notices being served on a former consultant's email and physical notices not reaching the assessee due to a change in residence. The assessee is ready to provide all relevant details and make an effective representation before the AO. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay and remand to the AO. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not oppose the assessee's prayers but submitted that the assessee remained non-compliant during assessment proceedings and suggested imposing costs and issuing directions for strict compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 148,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah AR proxy of Shri Hardik
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr.DR
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 01.10.2026

Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

The captioned two (2) appeals filed by assessee involve connected/inter- related issues. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity, clarity and to avoid repetition of facts.

ITA 1193/SRT/2025 – Quantum-Appeal:

Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva ITA No.1193 & 1194/SRT/2025 – A.Y. 2014-15

2.

This is a Quantum-Appeal directed against the order of first appeal dated 16.09.2025 passed by lea

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →