ALPESH CHAMPALAL JAIN,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN,BARODA

ITA 1157/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 October 2026AY 2019-202 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It observed that the assessee had sought an adjournment before the AO, which was not granted, and the grievance regarding the denial of adequate hearing was also not duly addressed by the CIT(A). Considering these facts and the assessee's willingness to substantiate its claims with evidence, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to provide one more opportunity. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Alpesh Champalal Jain, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee contended that despite furnishing most relevant documents to the Assessing Officer (AO), a scheduled video conference hearing on 24.02.2025 was missed due to an unavoidable engagement. An adjournment request through the portal was not granted, leading to an assessment order with an addition of Rs.24,06,920/- without further opportunity. This grievance was raised before the CIT(A) but not considered. The assessee expressed willingness to provide all necessary details to the AO and requested the matter be restored.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer, violating principles of natural justice under the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the AO completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.24,06,920/- without affording a further opportunity of hearing, despite the assessee's inability to attend a scheduled video conference on 24.02.2025 due to an unavoidable engagement and a denied adjournment request. This issue was also raised before the CIT(A) but not addressed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-

For Appellant: Shri Dipesh Poptani, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr DR
Hearing: 21.10.2026Pronounced: 22.10.2026

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 04.02.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had furnished almost all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. It was further submitted that a hearing through video conferencing was scheduled on 24.02.2025, which the assessee could not attend due to an unavoi

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →