BHARATBHAI CHAVDA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 569/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with notices from the CIT(A) on multiple occasions. However, considering the assessee's plea of disability and the request for an opportunity, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, confirming an addition of Rs. 13,35,000/- under Section 69A and taxed at a special rate as per Section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A) despite non-compliance with previous notices?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

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

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Agal, Sr DR
Hearing: 24.04.2025Pronounced: 30.04.2025

(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bharatbhai Chavda, Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-75, Anu Society, Santosh Wadi, Ward-1(2)(1), Danteshwar, Vadodara-39004 Vadodara [PAN : AGRPC 9087 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parin S. Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri S.K. Agal, Sr DR Date of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 02.02.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:-

“1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. JCIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 13,35,000/- u/s 69A ignoring submission of the appellant. 3. Ld. JCIT (A) erred in confirming action of AO to tax addition at special rate as per section 115BBE of the Act.”

3.

On going through the record, we find that the assessee has not complied to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on seven occasions which led to passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte.

4.

Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not comply to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) owing to disability and prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance would be made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR objected in principle. However, keeping in view the facts on record, we find that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity is given to the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall comply to all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30.04.2025

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →