RAMESHBHAI KALABHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. ASST. UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT. ( PRESENT JURI.- WARD 1, NADIAD ), KHEDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1532/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 November 2025AY 2015-16Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all relevant documents and comply with notices without unnecessary adjournments. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also restored.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and provide necessary details despite multiple opportunities, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee also faced a delay in filing the appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-compliance is sustainable, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.11.2025Pronounced: 04.11.2025

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

1.

The captioned two appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide order dated 06.12.2024 & 14.01.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. for Assessment Year 2015-16 155 days delay in filing Appeal-condoned

2.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

-1532/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2– 1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in passing an Ex-parte order and dismissing the appeal of the Appellant. It is submitted that the Appellant could not complied to the notices issued due to reason that all notices were issued by Ld CIT(A) an wrong email id Le 21 gauravadoc@gmail.com in spite of specific Email id provided in Form 351.e. gopalbhatt67@yahoo.co.in. On facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities please be directed to hear the Appellant again by providing proper opportunity of being heard and impugned addition made be deleted accordingly. The same please be held now.

2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AD reopening the case of the Appellant invoking provisions of Section 147/148 of the Act. It is submitted that on facts and circumstances of the case, there is not at all any escarpment of income on part of Appellant. On facts and circumstances of the case, the whole reopening of assessment invoking the provisions of Section 147/148 of the Act is bad in law and thus the addition made of Rs 70,66,000/- be deleted accordingly.

3.

The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that on one side, the Asst. Unit itself stated in the Asst. Order passed that the Appellant has duly responded to the notices issued and filed various documentary evidences and on the other side, it has invoked provisions of Section 144 of the Act (as stated in the body of order as well as in Para 6 of order). The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded five opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate the source of cash deposits. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal ex parte. At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the primary -1532/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 3– adjudication of the matter has not been carried out, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents, evidences, and bank details before the Revenue authorities and to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments 124 days delay in filing Appeal-condoned 4. Since the quantum appeal has been sent back to the Ld.CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with the decision in the quantum appeal. 5. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 04.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →