BHADRESHKUMAR SURENDRAKUMAR SHAH,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) / NFAC, which had dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. The assessee had failed to provide substantial documents/replies to the Ld. CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal dismissal for non-prosecution by the Ld. CIT(A) was justified, and if the reassessment order passed under Section 144 r.w.s 147 is bad in law.
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
Before: DR.BRR KUMAR & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: Delay Condoned The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi Ahmedabad, vide order dated 06.12.2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2–
1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in dismissing the appeal for alleged non-prosecution and the ld.AO has erred in law and on facts of the case, in making assessment u/s.144.
2. Notice issued u/s.148 and the consequential reassessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s 147 are bad in law.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise.
3. On going through the record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has awarded four opportunities of hearing to the assessee. In pursuance to the same, the assessee failed to submit any substantial documents/replies. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-prosecution. We also find that assessee has not complied even before the Assessing Officer. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Having gone through the fact, we hold that 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 de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3–
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026