SURESHKUMAR VALLABHBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 1197/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 October 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation to be genuine. Upon reviewing the materials, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merit and had not provided a substantial opportunity for hearing to the assessee. It was observed that notices were delivered to an incorrect email address. Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper verification of the issues and adjudication as per the Income Tax Act. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing, following the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the AO or the penalty proceedings. The finding on the issues of reopening, additions under Section 69A, and penalty proceedings were not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal, as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sureshkuamr Vallabhbhai Vaghasiya, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 and issued a notice under Section 148. The AO made an addition of Rs. 58,50,476/- on account of payments made for purchases to Kinjal Gems Pvt. Ltd., treating it as unexplained money under Section 69A. Additionally, an addition of Rs. 1,20,40,957/- was made under Section 69A for payments received from M/s. Seven Star Jewels Ltd., treated as alleged unexplained income from fake sales. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the details filed and that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment under Section 147 and issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - Assessee's contention: The reopening of assessment and issuance of notice under Section 148 were erroneous. - Revenue's contention: Relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 58,50,476/- on account of payment made for purchases to Kinjal Gems Pvt. Ltd. treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - Assessee's contention: The addition was erroneous and the CIT(A) failed to consider the details filed. - Revenue's contention: Relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,40,957/- on account of payment received from M/s. Seven Star Jewels Ltd. treated as alleged unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - Assessee's contention: The addition was erroneous and the CIT(A) failed to consider the details filed. - Revenue's contention: Relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 4. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order without offering adequate opportunities for hearing, and hence the case should be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO? - Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity to be heard. - Revenue's contention: Relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 5. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - Assessee's contention: The initiation of penalty proceedings was erroneous. - Revenue's contention: Relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c)

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 29.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening

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 →