BHARATKUMAR G PATEL ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO WARD - 3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 568/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 September 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it was fit and proper in the interest of justice to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. This decision was based on the fact that the appeal had gone completely unrepresented before the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the assessee to submit all relevant details and submissions without undue delay or seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The specific finding on the addition made under Section 69 of the Act was not decided as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bharatkumar G Patel, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), NFAC, Delhi, dated 04.12.2025. This order was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 68,11,334/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69 of the Act. The assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act due to the assessee's failure to provide complete and satisfactory replies to the AO's notices. The assessee also failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite receiving multiple hearing notices, leading to an ex-parte decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish relevant documents and make submissions, given the assessee's non-representation before the CIT(A)? Assessee's contention: The counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment application praying for the restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer (though the operative part of the order suggests restoration to CIT(A)) to enable the assessee to furnish all relevant documents and obtain a proper assessment. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri Tapas Ram Misra

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. D.R.s

PER TAPAS RAM MISRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 04.12.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. The assessee has challenged the assessment order wherein an addition of Rs.68,11,334/- was made u/s. 69 of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 because the

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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →