RAJNIKANT PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1525/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 January 2026AY 2011-12Bench: the hearing of the appeal.”3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the assessee's genuine difficulties, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the 'Prime Minister's Relief Fund' and strictly comply with all future notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee submitted an affidavit claiming inability to participate in assessment and appellate proceedings due to serious health issues and the responsibility of caring for two disabled children, requesting a fresh opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not providing an effective opportunity of being heard, validity of reopening under Section 147, and confirmation of an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

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

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Hearing: 05.01.2026Pronounced: 07.01.2026

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

Delay condoned.

1.

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 24.03.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:-

“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the Appeal Order without giving effective opportunity of being heard and thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2. The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in carrying out reopening u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,07,00,000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition is bad in law and deserves to be deleted.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.”

3. At the time of hearing before us, the assessee submitted an affidavit dated 02.01.2026, stating that he could not participate in the assessment proceedings due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. In the said affidavit, the assessee has explained that he has been suffering from serious health issues, including post-surgical complications and paralysis-related weakness. It was further stated that the assessee has two disabled children requiring constant care and attention, and due to these circumstances, he was unable to effectively participate in the assessment proceedings as well as to furnish the requisite factual details during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A). The assessee has categorically stated that the non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional.

4.

During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would furnish all the necessary details, clarifications and explanations before the revenue authorities. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for conducting the assessment de novo. However, it would be appropriate to impose Rajnikant Pravinchandra Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee which shall be deposited into the “Prime Minister’s Relief Fund”. The receipt of the same shall be submitted before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who shall take it on record before passing the order giving effect to this order of the Tribunal. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant details, statements, documents and explanations before the Assessing Officer and to strictly comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

5.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 07.01.2026

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →