GOVIND PATEL ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the NFAC, Delhi, for AY 2017-18. The grounds for dismissal included alleged non-payment of advance tax and initiation of reassessment proceedings without proper approval.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal without considering the merits and the factual contention of the assessee regarding tax payment and the validity of reassessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 151,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 69A,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 28/12/2024 by the NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’], pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “SECTION - INVALID ORDER
THAT, impugned dated 28/12/2024 was issued on pretext that, advance tax was not paid by appellant for AY 2017 - 18, however there was not outstanding liability on income returned by appellant.
THAT, NFAC has raised no query with regard to impugned non-payment of advance tax and without providing opportunity of hearing has dismissed appeal of appellant. SECTION 151 - INVALID APPROVAL FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 3. THAT, AO is erred in law and on facts, in initiating reassessment proceedings vide jurisdictional notice dated 29/07/2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Act, after seeking 2 approval from ld. PCIT instead on appropriate authority in accordance with section 151 of the Act, 1961. 4. SECTION 69 R. W.S 115BBE THAT, AO is erred in law and on facts allegedly making addition on account of unexplained investments on purchase of immovable property u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BB amounting to Rs. 1,25,641,00/-
SECTION 69 R.W.S. 115BBE THAT, AO is erred in law and on facts allegedly making addition on account of unexplained investments on purchase of bonds/debentures under section 69 r.w.s.115BBE amounting to Rs. Rs.5,87,50,000/-
SECTION 69A R.W.S. 115BBE THAT, AO is erred in law and on facts allegedly making addition on account of unexplained money on cash deposit by old SBN notes under section 69A r.w.s.115BBE amounting to Rs. Rs.9,50,000/-
SECTION 69A R. W.S. 115BBE THAT, AO is erred in law and on facts allegedly making addition on account of current year loans & advance to others under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE amounting to Rs.6,84,200/-.
SECTION 56(2)(vii) THAT, AO is erred in law and on facts allegedly making addition on account of gift amount treated as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T. Act amounting Rs.48,33,000/-.
SECTION 270A - 271AAC(1) THAT, AO is erred in law an on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under above mentioned sections.
THAT, the appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend or vary and/or withdraw any or all of the aforesaid grounds of Appeal or at time of hearing of the above appeal.”
3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on incorrect appreciation of facts inasmuch as the assessee had filed return of income and has paid taxes thereon.
4. On such submission, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case. We, therefore, deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, on merits of the case.
I.T.A. No. 277/Mum/2025 3
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
