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

ITA 469/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 September 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed details before the Tribunal. While these additional evidences were admitted, they required verification. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer 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 of Rs. 2,82,000/- and Rs. 10,35,125/-, and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, were not decided on merits but were subject to fresh verification by the AO. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the entire matter was remitted.

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 09.01.2026 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee had declared a total income of Rs. 2,16,062/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) finalized the assessment under Section 143(3) at Rs. 15,33,187/-, making additions of Rs. 10,35,125/- for unexplained payment for immovable property purchase 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 ITAT. The assessee's representative stated that details of cash deposits could not be provided to the AO or CIT(A) and requested a remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and confirming the Assessing Officer's actions, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,82,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating cash deposited in the bank account as undisclosed cash credits? 3. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,35,125/- by treating it as unexplained income? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity for hearing and requested a remand to the AO. The assessee also stated that details of cash deposits could not be provided earlier. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue relied upon 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 →