THE VANDELI DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

ITA 1875/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 February 2026AY 2019-20Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without a real and meaningful opportunity of hearing or verifying the assessee's details due to the assessee's constraints. Condoning a 215-day delay in appeal filing, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of evidences, details, and adjudication of issues on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate fully.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, faced additions by the Assessing Officer for commission income, cash deposits treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68, and interest income for AY 2019-20. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P for amounts paid to members from milk society receipts, which the AO denied due to lack of documentation. Both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and confirming additions (commission income, cash credit, interest income) and penalty proceedings without affording proper hearing and adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6),Section 271AAC,Section 271B,Section 271F,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234F,Section 148,Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 17-12- 2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2019-20. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). NFAC has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order ex- parte, without ensuring that a real and meaningful opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant, especially considering the peculiar circumstances and genuine limitations faced by the appellant in effectively participating in the proceedings.

2.

0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 15,99,113/- being the commission income earned on milk,

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →