NAVANITBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHUVA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 1195/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 October 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed solely on the ground of a 14-day delay. The assessee's representative argued that since the quantum appeal has been decided by the Tribunal and remanded back to the AO, the present matter should also be remanded back to the AO. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the materials, observed that the quantum issue is before the AO. Therefore, the AO will take cognizance of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter was accordingly remanded back to the file of the AO for adjudication. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the assessee must be given an opportunity of hearing, following the principles of natural justice. No specific finding was given on the merits of the penalty or the delay condonation, as the case was remitted back to the AO. The Tribunal did not decide the issue of whether the penalty should be deleted on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 14 days. The original assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to alleged cash deposits of Rs. 1,54,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B, adding the cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated, and a penalty of Rs. 52,34,460/- was imposed as the assessee was non-responsive. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) against this penalty was dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee, such as consecutive public holidays and travel. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an order without considering the adjournment request and without providing an opportunity of being heard, leading to an ex-parte order. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 52,34,460/- under Section 271(1)(c) without discussing the grounds on merits. Assessee's Contentions: - The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed only on account of a 14-day delay, which should have been condoned given the reasons of public holidays and travel. - The CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the adjournment request and without providing an opportunity of being heard. - The penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted considering the facts and evidence on record. - The quantum appeal has been decided by the Tribunal and remanded back to the AO, therefore, this matter should also be remanded back to the AO. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, penalty order, and the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 16.09.2025 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 law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning

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 →