JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing due opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee's bank accounts had significant cash deposits that were largely unexplained. The assessment for AY 2012-13 was reopened under Section 147, while AY 2017-18 was a regular assessment. The assessee claimed to have remained unheard in both assessment and appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment proceedings were valid without issuing a Section 143(2) notice, and whether the assessee was denied a fair hearing before the AO and CIT(A) regarding unexplained cash deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 69A,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- CIT v. Rajeev Sharma139 citing336 ITR 678 · 2011 · HC
- Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.105 citing383 ITR 448 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Nagendra Prasad19 citing156 Taxmann.com 19 · 2023 · HC
- 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO16 citing398 ITR 701 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA & MS.SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE
आदेश आदेश
PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The above two appeals relate to the same assessee and are against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi of even dated i.e. 29.2.2024 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2017-18. 2. At the outset itself, i
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026