SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL ,NEEMUCH vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 363/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 September 2025AY 2012-137 pages
AI SummaryN/A

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for Sunil Kumar Goyal, accepting the reason of not having e-filing password from a previous consultant. It rejected the argument about inconsistency between the reasons for re-opening and the subject matter of assessment. However, finding that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had discussed the documents submitted by the assessees regarding the source of funds for the investments, the Tribunal remanded all four appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper verification.

What were the facts?

Two assessees, Shilpi Goyal and Sunil Kumar Goyal, filed four appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, which had upheld original assessment orders. The assessments were re-opened based on information about investments made with M/s U B Investment. Sunil Kumar Goyal's appeals were filed with a delay of 151 days, for which condonation was sought.

What were the issues?

1. Whether to condone the delay in filing appeals. 2. Whether there was an inconsistency in the reasons for re-opening assessments and the subsequent assessment orders. 3. Whether the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider documents proving the source of investment funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (VIRTUAL

Before: Dr. MITHA LAL. MEENA & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Deshpande, C.A
For Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR
Hearing: 11/09/2025Pronounced: 29/09/2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 370 /Jodh/2023
ITA No. 469/Jodh/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

17.

In view of the above discussion, all the four appeals are disposed off, for statistical purpose and the matters are restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, and in accordance with law. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →