DINESHBHAI BHAVANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1) PREVIOUSLY WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers

ITA 189/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 April 2025AY 2011-12Bench: DR.BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that notices were issued to the assessee multiple times to submit details regarding undisclosed income, but the assessee failed to reply. Despite the assessee's non-compliance and filing of an adjournment application, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2011-12. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,93,55,858/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee claimed that they were not granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and confirming the addition without proper examination, and if the case should be remanded for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR.BRR KUMAR & SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, AR

For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. DR

Hearing: 21.04.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025

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

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide order dated 29.10.2024 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2–

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting the adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant during the course of appellant proceedings, such opportunity should have been granted in the interest of justice.

2. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on fact in confirming the addition of Rs.1,93,55,858/- made by the AO being 20% of the total credits in Bank Accounts, such addition is requested to be deleted.

3. On going through the record, we find that the notices u/s.250 were issued on 30.12.2019, 05.02.2021, 02.11.2022 & 04.11.2022, requesting the assessee to submit certain details/clarification/ explanation regarding undisclosed income. However, in pursuance to the same the assessee failed to submit any reply and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. At the time of hearing, we noticed that Ld.AR for the assessee has filed an adjournment application. We also find that the assessee has not even complied before the Assessing Officer. Having gone through the fact, we hold that the no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment proceedings de-novo. The assessee shall submit all the relevant document and bank statement before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. The Assessing Officer shall Asst.Year –2011-12 - 3– provide all the details received from internal sources with regard to deposits in Assessee’s bank account.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →