RAJENDRAKUMAR RAOJIBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 61/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the assessee was unable to appear before the CIT(A) due to issues with email service. The assessee's counsel requested an opportunity to present their case. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de-novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The grounds of appeal raised concerns about the validity of notice u/s 148 and the subsequent order passed u/s 144B r.w.s 147. The assessee also contested an addition of Rs.3,41,255/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued u/s 148 was valid and whether the subsequent proceedings and additions were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B,Section 147,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, AR
For Respondent: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.07.2025Pronounced: 18.07.2025

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

1.

1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 09.12.2024 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 appeals:

1.

Notice issued u/s 148 datd.06.04.2022 is bad in law as the same is issued without acquiring valid jurisdiction and accordingly, order passed u/s 144B r.w.s 147 dated.09.03.2024 and demand notice issued u/s 156 are bad in law for want of issuance of valid notice u/s 148.

Rajendrakumar R Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 02. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition Rs.3,41,255/- being alleged deemed income earned by the appellant without appreciating facts and law of the case properly.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was unable to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) owing to the service of notices issued to the email address not being updated by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance will be made and all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall submit all the relevant submissions/documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

4.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 18.07.2025

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 18.07.2025 MV Rajendrakumar R Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →