BHAVANABEN RASHIKLAL VANIYA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 469/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 September 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed additional evidence before it. However, these additional evidences required verification. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for proper verification and adjudication of the issues on merit. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee must be given an opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The specific findings on the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal due to the remand. The ratio decidendi is that when additional evidence is filed before the appellate authority and requires verification, and the lower appellate order is ex-parte, a remand to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing is appropriate. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhavana ben Rashiklal Vaniya, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated January 9, 2026, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee, engaged in garment trading, had her return of income for AY 2014-15, declaring Rs. 2,16,062, selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) finalized the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the total income at Rs. 15,33,187. The AO made additions of Rs. 10,35,125 for unexplained payments for immovable property and Rs. 2,82,000 for cash deposits under Section 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and confirming the Assessing Officer's actions, violating principles of natural justice, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,82,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by treating cash deposited in the assessee's bank account as undisclosed cash credits, as argued by the assessee. 3. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,35,125 by treating it as unexplained income, as argued by the assessee. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that she could not provide details of cash deposits before the AO and CIT(A). She requested a remand back to the AO, stating the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte without providing an opportunity for hearing. The assessee also filed additional evidence before the Tribunal. 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 143(3),Section 68

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: 23.09.2026

PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A), Gurugram [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 09.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passi

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →