SANKET VIJAYBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.CIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2446/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 October 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submissions of the assessee's counsel and the material on record. It was observed that the assessee had been granted multiple opportunities by the CIT(A) to furnish details and explanations but failed to do so, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, considering the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, specifically the serious health issues of the assessee's father, the Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant bank statements, supporting documents, and written submissions before the CIT(A) and to comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanket Vijaybhai Shah, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) had reopened the assessee's case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information regarding fictitious loans and alleged bogus short-term capital loss in the scrip of Looks Health Services Ltd. The AO made additions totaling Rs. 33,91,056, comprising a disallowance of Rs. 32,92,288 for the alleged bogus loss and Rs. 98,768 as commission for accommodation entry. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee then filed the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed before the ITAT should be admitted despite a delay, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? - Assessee's Contention: The delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee's father's serious illness and his preoccupation with his father's treatment, which prevented him from attending to income-tax matters and monitoring communications. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay. - Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of the case under Section 147 and the subsequent additions made by the AO? - Assessee's Contention: The reopening under Section 147 was illegal, unlawful, and against the principles of natural justice, used for a 'fishing and roving inquiry' and mechanically based on information from the investigation wing. The CIT(A) also erred in not considering the facts and evidence properly and in not conducting an inquiry, violating natural justice, and sought an opportunity to produce additional evidence. The CIT(A) also erred in upholding the application of Section 115BBE without proper invocation or show cause notice. - Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 139(4),Section 147,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singhj, Sr.DR
Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 19.10.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2015-

16.

ITA No. 2446/AHD/2026, AY-2015-16 Sanket Vijaybhai Shah - 2–

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 23.06.2025 for A.Y.2015-16 by CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.33,91,056 made by AO is wholly illega

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 139(4)

All 902 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →