MUNIR USMANBHAI GHANCHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2191/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 February 2026AY 2012-13Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity to make due compliance before the Assessing Officer, provided a payment of Rs.10,000/- is made to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. Upon production of the payment receipt, the Assessing Officer is directed to undertake the assessment proceedings de-novo.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13, challenging the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under Section 147 and an addition of Rs.1,50,70,000/- under Section 68. The assessee had previously failed to appear before both the AO and CIT(A) despite receiving notices, including one under Section 148.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 147 and in making an addition of Rs.1,50,70,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Uday Kakne Kishanrao, Sr DR
Hearing: 10.02.2026Pronounced: 11.02.2026

O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT :

1.

Delay condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 15.07.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in exercising jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.1,50,70,000/- u/s 68 of the Act.”

3.

The assessee, in this case, neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor filed a return in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Further, the Munir Usmanbhai Ghanchi Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) inspite of a number of notices issued.

4.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that, if given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the Assessing Officer where the primary default occurred. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly agreed for the payment of Rs.10,000/- [Rs. Ten Thousand Only] to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund [PMRF] towards the cost incurred by the Revenue. The assessee is directed to deposit the said amount in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and produce the receipt of the same before the Assessing Officer, who shall undertake the assessment proceedings de-novo.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 11.02.2026

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →