MAHAVIR ENGINEERING WORKS,RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 950/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 September 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they did not get a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer to represent their case. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's contention also supported remitting the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to issues with document verification and the need for further factual verification of legal issues. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company v. CIT, where an appeal was remanded due to the assessee being denied adequate opportunity, the Tribunal found it necessary to protect the assessees' rights to natural justice. The operative direction is to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The assessees will be at liberty to adduce relevant evidence, and the Assessing Officer shall provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

These five appeals, filed by N J Gears, Mahavir Engineering Works, and Virjibhai Jerambhai Patel (Prop. Vijay Marshal Ind.), pertain to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. The appeals challenge orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which arose from assessment orders by the Assessing Officer. The common issue involves proceedings initiated under Section 147 based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding the assessees being beneficiaries of an angadiya group, M/s National Shroff & Co. The assessees denied transactions with M/s National Shroff & Co. and claimed they were not provided an opportunity for cross-examination. They also contended that notices under Section 143(2) were not issued in all cases and that crucial seized documents were not provided, violating principles of natural justice. The assessees sought restoration of appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing them to submit additional documents and evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessees to submit additional documents and evidence, given the alleged denial of proper opportunity and violation of natural justice before the Assessing Officer? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The assessees argued that they were not provided with a proper opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, including the opportunity for cross-examination of parties involved. They claimed that crucial documents were not provided, and notices under Section 143(2) were not issued in all cases. Therefore, they requested the appeals be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, allowing them to submit additional documents and evidence. They relied on the principle of natural justice and the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company v. CIT. Revenue's contention: The Revenue submitted that assessment records were not readily available due to the old assessment years. They contended that notices under Section 143(2) were issued within the time limit in all cases. They also argued that the assessees failed to submit complete documents and evidence before the Assessing Officer, submitting them at the fag end, which did not provide sufficient time for examination. The Revenue agreed that the appeals should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 133(6),Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 403/RJT/2026
ITA No. 405/RJT/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट । In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 403/RJT/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 ] N J Gears, ITO Ward 3(1)(1) Rajkot 1 Vaidwadi, Near Shivam Aayakar Bhawan, Race बनाम/ Gujarat-360004 Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAHFN1972F (Appellant) (Respondent)

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 948, 949 & 950/RJT/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 ] Mahavir Engineering Works, ITO Ward 1(1)(1) Rajkot, 11, Mavdi Plot, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course बनाम Rajkot, Gujarat 360004 Ring Road, Rajkot, /Vs. Gujarat, 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADFM3701D (Appellant) (Respondent)

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 405/RJT/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 ] Virjibhai Jerambhai Patel, ITO Ward 1(2)(2) Rajkot, Prop. Vijay Marshal Ind. G.L.D.C., Aayakar Bhawan, Race बनाम/ Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACGPP8238D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Appella

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 →