BHAILAL DAHYABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2) NOW WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers

ITA 569/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 September 2025AY 2012-13Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the appeal was disposed of without adjudicating on the merits. Therefore, to provide justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving a due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) for non-appearance and non-submission of documents, despite four opportunities granted. The assessee argued that their submissions were not considered and legal grounds were not adjudicated.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits, and if a remand is necessary for fresh adjudication after affording proper opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, AR

For Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr

Hearing: 17.09.2025Pronounced: 22.09.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bhailal Dahyabhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. D/1, Shailja Apartment, Near Sugam Ward 5(2)(2), Flat, Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007 Now Ward 6(1)(1), Ahmedabad [PAN :ANQPP 3835 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jaimin Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A), Gwalior (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds : “01. That the Ld. CIT(A) and ITO, ward 5(2)(2), Ahmedabad has erred both in law and on facts while passing the order u/s 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and therefore it requires to be set aside.

2. The appellant has submitted all the submissions before the assessing officer, however without considering the same and without adjudicating the legal grounds on the basis of facts on record CIT(A) has passed order on 17/01/2025 is require to be re-consider.

….” Bhailal Dahyabhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2–

On going through the record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has accorded four opportunities of hearing to the assessee. Despite this, the assessee neither submitted any written submissions nor appeared before the Ld. CIT(A), nor sought adjournment. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal in limine. However, considering that the appeal was disposed of without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds raised, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall submit all the submission/documents and comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →