CHAMPABEN NARESH LIMBANI,VILLAGE NANI KHAKHAR, TAL. MANDAVI, DIST. KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD-3, GANDHIDHAM(BHUJ-1), GANDHIDHAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that notices were sent to an email address belonging to the assessee's old tax consultant, who did not inform the assessee about the proceedings and hearings. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the service of notices upon the assessee. It was also noted that the assessment was framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B, and the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the AO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present her case before the lower authority. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to submit all required documents in support of the income earned during the year. The issue of penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F, and interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, were implicitly left undecided as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Champaben Naresh Limbani, is in appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) dated 02.09.2024. This order confirmed an assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department/Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 24.03.2024. The assessment year in question is 2016-17. The assessee had not filed a return of income for this year. The AO initiated proceedings under section 147 due to a transaction of Rs. 58,31,959/- for the purchase of immovable property. The assessee claimed to have received an advance of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from M/s. Peari Developers Bhayandar for the sale of a plot of land and used this advance to purchase the immovable property. The AO treated the Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as unexplained credit under section 68 and taxable under section 115BBE. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance and failure to submit requisite documents, despite several notices.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly passed the order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee (mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (mixed law and fact, turning on Section 147). 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained credit (mixed law and fact, turning on Section 68). 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the applicability of provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (mixed law and fact, turning on Section 115BBE). 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (mixed law and fact, turning on Sections 234A, 234B, 234C). 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (mixed law and fact, turning on Sections 271(1)(c), 271F). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the registered email address used for communication belonged to an old tax consultant who failed to inform the assessee about the proceedings and hearings. Therefore, the assessee prayed for one more opportunity to represent the case before the lower authorities. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue relied on the judgment of the Ld. CIT(A) and did not object to the prayer of the Ld. AR of the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144B,Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH,
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:
1. Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 02.09.2024, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 24.03.2024.
2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee:
1 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly passed the order without providing proper opportunity of being heard.
2 The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. 1961. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- u/s 68 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained credit. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed applicability of provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6 The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any aforesaid grounds of appeal.
Brief facts of the case that the assessee has not filed return of income for Assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has made a transaction amount of Rs. 58,31,959/- for purchase the immovable property. That in notice was issued u/s. 148A(d) dated 02.03.2023 of the Act requested to furnish the details about the transaction, but the assessee did not furnished the details. An order u/s. 148A(d) was passed on 21.03.2023 of the Act. alongwith notice u/s. 148B of the Act, the assessee replied to the notice,
That purchase of immovable property of Rs. 58,00,000/-. A show cause notice was issued by the Ld. AO. The assessee has mentioned in her reply that she had entered into an agreement for sale of plot of land for Rs. 2,40,00,000/- and an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was received as token advance from M/s. Peari Developers Bhayandar, Thane and assessees stated that she had purchased the immovable property with the advance money received from M/s. Peari Developers Bhayandar only. The assessee’s explanation for sources of money is extracted.
The assessee has submitted the details in respect of the transaction as mentioned above about the in immovable property. A show cause notice was issued in respect of advance money of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-taken by the assessee from 3rd party is treated as unexplained money u/s. 68 of the Act and the same is taxable u/s. 115BBE of the Act.
S. No. Description Amount
Income as per return of income 2,48,770/-
Income/Loss as computed u/s. 143(1)(a)
3. Addition on account of unexplained credit as discussed in 1,50,00,000 Paras 4.2.3, 4.2.4 & 4.6.
Total income determined as per the above proposal 1,52,48,770
4. That the assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Ld. AO in the office of the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has issued the several notices for hearing but the assessee did not reply or submit the requisite documents before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on 02.09.2024.
That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that registered email address belongs to old tax consultant of the assessee, who did not inform the assessee about proceedings and hearing of the cash. Therefore, the Ld. AR of the assessee prayed that one more opportunity to be given to the assessee to represent the case before lower authority.
On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue relied on the judgement of the Ld. CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noted that the notices were sent on e-mail address and the email id is belonging to the old tax consultant of the assessee, who did not inform the assessee about the proceedings and hearings. We noted that the several notices have been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearings of the case. We further note that the order of the CIT(A) is silent on service of notices upon the assessee. We further observed that the assessment was framed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the I. T. Act by the Ld. AO. We note that the assessee has not made the compliance with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. AO. In interest of justice, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before lower authority, we set aside the order of the Ld. AO and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits. After giving due opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is further directed to the assessee to submit all the required documents in support of the income earned during the year.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02 -04-2025
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 →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
