DINKER MAHENDRAKUMAR PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD - 3(2)(7), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 66/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 October 2026AY 2012-138 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the contention regarding the invalidity of the notice under Section 133(6) dated February 25, 2019, for want of prior approval was not justified, as a subsequent notice under Section 133(6) dated February 20, 2020, clearly indicated approval from the PCIT. The Tribunal also found that the reasons recorded for reopening did disclose an application of mind by the AO, who was satisfied about cash deposits in the bank account during AY 2012-13 and believed that such income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee, stating the facts were different. Therefore, Ground No. 1 was dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 2 and 3, the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to be a retail trader depositing sale proceeds and making payments to suppliers, which was ignored by the lower authorities. The assessee also provided details of deposits and a second bank account belonging to their sister, which were not considered. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper verification and adjudication, with an opportunity for a hearing to the assessee. Grounds 2 and 3 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dinker Mahendrakumar Patel, engaged in retail trade, did not file an income tax return for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147, issuing a notice under Section 148 on March 29, 2019, based on information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 12,07,000/- in a bank account. The assessee did not respond to the notices. The AO passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147, making an addition of Rs. 20,78,118/- for unexplained deposits. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of reopening the assessee's case under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148, and whether the initial notice under Section 133(6) was valid without prior approval, and if the reasons recorded for reopening lacked independent application of mind and were based on incorrect facts. Assessee's Contentions: The reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction. The reopening was based on unverified AIR/CIB information without independent application of mind and without satisfying statutory preconditions under Sections 147, 148, and 151. The notice under Section 133(6) dated February 25, 2019, was issued without prior approval from the Principal Commissioner, making it illegal. The reasons recorded did not disclose independent application of mind, merely reproducing system information and proceeding on assumptions. The actual cash deposits were Rs. 6,49,000/-, not Rs. 12,07,000/-, making the foundational fact incorrect. Reopening cannot be sustained merely on AIR/CIB information without independent verification. Reliance was placed on various High Court and Tribunal decisions. Revenue's Contentions: The assessee did not respond to notices. Necessary approval and reasons recorded were done properly as per the Act. The reasons for reopening categorically mentioned the notice under Section 133(6) and the cash deposit details matching the additions. The AO and CIT(A) rightly considered the contentions, and the addition was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 133(6),Section 151

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: 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), ADDL/JCIT(A), Mumbai [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 22.11.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-

13.2.

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 confirming the action of the assessing officer in reopening the case of the assessee u/s. 147 of the I.

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 →