HIRALBEN RAVIBHAI KSHATRIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1321/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 November 2025AY 2018-19Bench: him considering bona fide of the appellant.3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay before the CIT(A) and the assessee's non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice and based on the counsel's prayer for an opportunity to furnish details, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions for the assessee to comply with all future notices and submit required documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2018-19, which had dismissed her appeal due to a delay in filing and non-furnishing of sufficient cause for condonation. The assessee also failed to comply during the original Assessing Officer proceedings. The appeal grounds challenge the reopening of assessment, an addition under Section 69, procedural errors, and levy of penalty and interest.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay condonation, and whether the assessment reopening and subsequent additions/penalties/interest were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69,Section 250(6),Section 271AAC,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.11.2025Pronounced: 04.11.2025

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The order passed by lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed.

2. The reopening of Assessing u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law and required to be quashed.

3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming reopening of assessment without observing escapement merely for verification purpose.

4. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.3761920/- u/s.69 of the Act by treating same as unexplained investment ignoring submission of appellant.

5.

Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in not passing order as per the provision of section 250(6) of the Act. 6. Ld. NFAC ought to have condone the delay in filing appeal before him considering bona fide of the appellant. 7. Initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AAC of the Act is unjustified. 8. Charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is unjustified. 9. The appellant craves to add, to alter, to substitute, to amend any ground/grounds of appeal

at any time of hearing of the appeal is occasion arises.

3. On perusal of the record, we find that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. We further note that the assessee had not complied even during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 04.11.2025. S /- Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True C (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 04.11.2025 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →