AGRY BUSINESS CENTRE,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(9), BHAVNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish sufficient cause for delay and had not complied with previous proceedings. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal for delay without considering the facts. The assessee had also failed to furnish requisite documents and comply with notices before the Assessing Officer and had a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for delay without considering the facts, and whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
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 17.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and rejecting the request for condonation of delay without considering the totality of the fact of the case.
2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)_National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in not disposing the following grounds raised before him.
Ground No. 1 The Ld. A.O. has erred in law in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and further erred in completing the assessment under the said section. Ground No. 2 The Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 27,45,100/- on bank deposit (cash and cheque), being the trading receipts deposited in to the bank without considering the totality of the facts in detail.
The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.
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.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 14.08.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 14.08.2025 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 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
- 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 →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
