MANISHKUMAR JAYANTILAL SONI,KAPADWANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , NADIAD., NADIAD.

ITA 558/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 September 2026AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the approach of the Learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal was untenable. The CIT(A) erred in concluding that opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme amounted to an admission of liability and in dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal referred to CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) to state that the CIT(A) is required to adjudicate appeals by a written order stating points for determination, decision, and reasons, even if the assessee fails to appear. The Tribunal clarified that filing or rejection of a Vivad se Vishwas settlement application does not constitute an admission of guilt or liability. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to raise all legal contentions, including those challenging the reopening under Section 147/148 and the validity of approval under Section 151. The assessee was directed to cooperate, produce all relevant documents, and the CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal did not return any findings on the merits of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manishkumar Jayantilal Soni, filed an appeal against an order dated 02/12/2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (CIT(A)). The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order dated 05/12/2019, passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-2013. The assessee had not filed a return for AY 2012-2013. Reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information regarding sale of 'Gawar'. A show-cause notice proposed adding Rs. 46,50,546/- as the assessee did not respond to earlier notices. The assessee responded with a bank statement, but the Assessing Officer (AO) added the amount as unexplained cash credit, holding the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, citing the assessee's opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and failure to prosecute the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reasons for reopening and the belief formed were invalid, making the notice under Section 148 void and invalid in law, as argued by the assessee? (Question of law, concerning Section 148 of the Act). 2. Whether the approval granted under Section 151 was mechanical, rendering it invalid, as argued by the assessee? (Question of law, concerning Section 151 of the Act). 3. Whether the Assessment Order dated 05-12-2019 is void and bad in law due to fundamental contradictions in the sections cited (Section 144 r.w.s. 147 versus Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147), indicating a lack of application of mind, as argued by the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Sections 144, 143(3), and 147 of the Act). 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 46,50,546/- as unexplained cash credit is invalid and unsustainable in law, as the show cause notice proposed adding it as interest received, and the assessee argued it was received in FY 2015-16, not the year under consideration, as argued by the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Act). 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 46,50,546/- as unexplained cash credit, as argued by the assessee? (Question of fact and law). The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 02/12/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 05/12/2019, passed under Section 144 of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The reasons for reopening have been recorded and belief in this regard has been formed in

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 →