SAVITABEN NAVINBHAI PATEL,UNJHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PATAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1881/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to properly verify the evidence, adjudicate the case on merits, and adhere to the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased agricultural land, with her 9% share amounting to Rs. 45,35,964/-. The Assessing Officer, finding the assessee's declared income low and the source of funds unexplained, added this amount under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 45,35,964/- under Section 69A for unexplained investment was justified, and whether the CIT(A) violated natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

1.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 25-07- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- “1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made u/s.69A of Rs.45,35,964/-.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have upheld/confirmed the addition made u/s. 69A of Rs.45,35,964/-.

Savitaben Navinbhai Patel, A.Y. 2013-14 3. It is therefore prayed that the addition made u/s.69A of Rs.45,35,964/- may be deleted and the orders of the lower authorities may be set aside/modified accordingly. 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. The assessee had purchased agricultural land along with 9 other co-owners on 10-12-2012 at Rs. 5,03,99,800/- and the assessee’s share was 9% amounting to Rs. 45,35,964/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessee was issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31-03-2020. The assessee filed revised return of income on 16-06-2020. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee declared very low income which cannot justify her eligibility to take loan of Rs. 45,35,964/- and thus source of the said amount was not properly explained. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 45,35,964/- u/s. 69A of the Act.

4.

The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) as the assessee was given not opportunity of hearing or submitting its evidences produced before the Assessing Officer.

6.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without giving proper Savitaben Navinbhai Patel, A.Y. 2013-14 opportunity to the assessee, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper verification of the evidences and adjudicate the matter on merit as per Income Tax Act. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

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

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →