SEJAL JATIN AMIN,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY ACIT (OSD)-WARD-5), ANAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1606/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 October 2025AY 2011-12Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

Observing the assessee's repeated non-compliance and delay, but in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions for the assessee to fully comply by submitting all documents and adhering to notices without seeking adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12, which dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance, delay in filing, and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, also noting prior non-compliance during AO proceedings. Key grounds of appeal included denial of natural justice, incorrect assessment under Section 147 instead of Section 153C, and confirmation of a capital gain addition of Rs. 97,98,500/-.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance and delay, the jurisdictional validity of the assessment under Section 147 versus Section 153C, and the substantive challenge to the capital gain addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.10.2025Pronounced: 07.10.2025

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

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:

1 The Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard and thus, the order so passed is prayed to be set aside 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal by rejecting the condonation for delay in filing the appeal and Sejal Jain Amin Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– for non-compliance and non-pursuing of appeal. The appellant prays to direct the Ld CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard and condone delay in filing appeal before him.

3.

Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal raised above, the Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s. 147 of the Act though the case is re-opened based on the evidences found in the search proceedings at the third party premises and thus, the assessment is required to be made u/s. 153C of the Act. Thus, the order so passed by the Ld. AO is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed as illegal and void.

4. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal raised above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs. 97,98,500/- treating it as capital gain on sale of immovable property. The impugned addition of Rs. 98,98,500/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted.

5. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend substitute or withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained.

3. On perusal of the record, we find that notices of hearing were issued on several occasions, however, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite documents. 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 submitted that, if granted 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 with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

4.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 07.10.2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 07.10.2025 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →