KHAJANCHI AND GANDHI STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1281/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2015-169 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 649 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations and that there is no presumption of deliberate delay. On merits, the Tribunal noted that no representation was made before the CIT(A) after the appeals were filed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to adjudicate the grounds raised afresh. The assessee was directed to update its contact details. Ground No. 1 (regarding validity of reopening) was allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits. Grounds 2 and 3 (regarding objections to reopening and additions under Section 68) were dismissed as infructuous due to the remand. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Khajanchi And Gandhi Stock Broking Private Limited, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 1280 & 1281/AHD/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. The appeals challenged orders from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (CIT(A)), which had dismissed the assessee's appeals against assessment orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment orders were dated 26/03/2022. The CIT(A) orders were dated 25/04/2024. The assessee faced a delay of 649 days in filing the appeals before the ITAT. The delay was attributed to the CIT(A) issuing notices and orders to an incorrect email address, leading to the assessee's non-compliance and unawareness of proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 649 days in filing the appeals before the ITAT is liable to be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act were valid without tangible material? 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,77,200/- (for AY 2013-14) and Rs. 20,84,822/- (for AY 2015-16) made under Section 68 of the Act were justified? Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing appeals was due to genuine and bona fide reasons, specifically the CIT(A) issuing notices and orders to an incorrect email address, preventing the assessee from participating in the appellate proceedings or receiving orders. - The reassessment proceedings were initiated without any tangible material. - The additions made under Section 68 were erroneous. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

These are two appeals preferred by the same Assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. Since the appeals involved identical issues, the same were taken-up together and are being disposed by way of a common order.

2.

We would first take up ITA No. 1280/AHD/2026 preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 25/04/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assess

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 →