KUTCH LEAFIN LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal on a technical ground of delay without appreciating the bona fide cause denied justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal due to a 13-day delay. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee with notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground of delay without adjudicating on merits, and if the reopening and additions made by the AO were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
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 14.07.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant on account of delay in filing, without appreciating that the delay of 13 days was due to reasonable and bona fide cause. The dismissal of appeal on such hyper-technical ground has resulted in denial of justice.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits despite substantial grounds being raised. The dismissal merely on technical grounds is unjust, improper and against the settled principles of law 3. The Ld. AO has erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing, without Kutch Leafin Limited Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– any independent application of mind, verification, OR tangible material, rendering the reopening bad in law.
4. The Ld. AO has erred in making an arbitrary and ad hoc addition of 1% of total bank credits amounting to Rs.61,59,600/- without invoking any specific provision of the Act, without rejecting the books of account, and without providing any rationale for such addition.
The Ld. AO has erred in making the impugned addition without granting proper and effective opportunity of being heard, without furnishing reasons recorded for reopening, and without issuing any show cause notice before making the addition, thereby violating natural justice.
6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) mechanically and without recording satisfaction, though there was no concealment of income OR furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Appellant.
The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in initiated interest proceedings u/s 234A, 234B & 234C despite the fact that the amount added to the total income of the assessee is bad in law and proposing on interest on same is also and same need to be deleted.
The assessee request your good selves that since he was not given proper opportunity of being heard, submission of additional evidence at the time of appeal proceedings' is requested.”
From the record, we find that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on eight occasions. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.61,59,600/- being 1% of the total net credits found in the bank accounts amounting to Rs.61,59,60,057/-.
The Ld. DR submitted before us that the assessee has been categorized as NBFC under ‘High Risk Financial Institutions’ (by BIU-IND) on account of non- compliance with the PMLA and PML Rules, i.e. non-registration of Principal Officer (PO), which is found at Sr. No. 4520 as ‘MANDHANA FEAFIN LIMITED’. The Ld. DR also submitted that the assessee has been registered at various addresses; however, we do not consider an impediment to adjudicating the case. Kutch Leafin Limited Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3–
5. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order owing to non-compliance by the assessee. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 10.12.2025 (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 10.12.2025 *btk
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
