OJAS ASHOK MEHTA ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), SURAT

ITA 617/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 September 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the notice dated 07.03.2024 appeared to have been sent to an incorrect party, suggesting the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing. Consequently, the CIT(A) likely passed an ex-parte order without verifying the details. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper verification of the details submitted by the assessee and to adjudicate the contested issues in accordance with the Income Tax Act. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing, following the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the validity of reopening, the additions made, or the estimation of profit, as these were to be adjudicated by the CIT(A) upon remand.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ojas Ashok Mehta, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee's return was initially accepted under Section 143(1). A notice under Section 148 was issued on March 30, 2019, for reopening the assessment. The assessee explained cash deposits of Rs. 10,58,500/- from previous assessed income and stated that Rs. 37,55,693/- received by cheque was advance for land. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this Rs. 37,55,693/- as trading receipt and made an addition. The AO also added Rs. 34,00,000/- for alleged investment in a plot. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment reopening under Section 147 was valid without providing reasons recorded for reopening, rendering the assessment null and void? 2. Whether the reopening under Section 147 was justified on an issue already decided in preceding assessment years, indicating no income had escaped assessment? 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 37,55,693/- was erroneous without distinguishing between cheque transactions and cash deposits from previously assessed income? 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 37,55,693/- was incorrect by treating the entire receipt as income instead of estimating Net Profit at 1.6% (Rs. 60,092/-), even if the explanation for plot advance was disbelieved? 5. Whether the addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- for alleged investment in a plot, made from advance received for the same plot as an agent, was justified without appreciating the evidence? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without issuing notice of hearing, and therefore, the matter should be remanded. The assessee also raised grounds related to the validity of reopening, incorrect additions, and estimation of profit. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue relied on the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(1)

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 Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [in short “CIT(A)”] [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 09.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has grievously erred in law and on fact in re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act without submitting the copy

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 →