INDRAKUMAR SUKLA,SILVASSA vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA

ITA 34/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 October 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Indrakumar Sukla, an individual retailer of milk and milk products, filed his return for AY 2020-21 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,97,560/-, with business income under section 44AD. The return was accepted. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) re-opened the case under section 147 based on information of high bank deposits. The AO completed an ex-parte assessment under section 144, re-assessing the total income at Rs. 10,13,53,415/-. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-prosecution, upholding the AO's order. The assessee is now appealing to the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order dated 18.11.2025.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matter. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, implying that the substantive issues were not decided on merits at this stage. The specific findings on the validity of reassessment, the nature of cash deposits, and the applicability of section 115BBE were left to be decided by the AO upon fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were valid, considering the alleged absence of valid assumption of jurisdiction and proper satisfaction by the AO? (Question of law) 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,08,37,480/- under section 69A, treating cash deposits as unexplained money, was justified, or if these deposits represented business receipts from the sale of milk and milk products? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the application of section 115BBE to the impugned addition was legally sustainable? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The reassessment proceedings were bad in law and void ab initio. The addition under section 69A was incorrect as the cash deposits were business receipts with rapid rotation. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment, the addition, and the application of section 115BBE, and in passing a non-speaking order without granting an effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee sought restoration of the matter to the AO for a fresh adjudication. Revenue's contentions: The assessee remained non-compliant during assessment and first appeal proceedings, leading to ex-parte orders. The revenue did not oppose the prayer for restoration but requested directions for strict compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 139,Section 143(1),Section 148A,Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 250

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 Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA
For Respondent: Shri J.K. Chandnani, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by the order of first-appeal dated 18.11.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 19.12.2024 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 r.ws. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2020-21, the assessee has filed this appeal. Indrakumar Sukla

2.

The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of AY 2020-21 u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,9

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 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →