MAHENDRA MANILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to comply with all future notices and furnish necessary details, clarifications, and explanations without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The dismissal was due to a delay in filing the appeal and the assessee's failure to furnish sufficient cause for condonation, along with non-compliance during the Assessing Officer's proceedings.
What were the issues?
Validity of lower authorities' order; reopening of assessment under section 148; dismissal of appeal by NFAC ignoring condonation petition; disallowance under section 80GGC; disallowance under capital gain without granting cost of acquisition; addition of rental income as business income; initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A; charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 80GGC,Section 270A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, Ahmedabad
O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)/National faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi relevant to the Assessment Year 2019-20.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The order passed by lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed.
The reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act is required to be quashed.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal ignoring condonation petition and thus violated principle of natural justice.
4. Appellant prays that appeal may be set aside for adjudication on Rs. 0 merits considering submission of the appellant.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance 6 of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made under capital gain without granting cost of acquisition.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 2,50,69,874/- of rental income ignoring fact that appellant is in business of renting out and impugned income has already disclosed under head business income.
Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act is unjustified 9. Charging of interest u/s.234A 234B, 234C are unjustified.
3. On perusal of the record, we find that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. We further note that the assessee had not complied even during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance will be made, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 23.02.2026 **mv Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 3– आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy
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 →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
