SNEHLATABEN JIVRAMBHAI VASAVA,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), BHARUCH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 400/SRT/2025Status: HeardITAT Surat22 January 2026AY 2011-12Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Vice President), MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter needed to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of the additional evidence. The AO was directed to adjudicate the issues on merits after verification, providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed against an ex-parte order of the NFAC. The assessee filed additional evidence not previously considered by the lower authorities, related to cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Verification of additional evidence and adjudication on merits after providing a fair hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 21-06-2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Delay condoned.

3.

The assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte. Therefore at this juncture, the ld. A.R. has filed additional evidences which were not before both the authorities. The issue is related to cash deposits. The matter is remanded back to the file of the A.O. for verification of the additional evidences filed before us. After verifying the same, adjudicate the Snehlataben J. Vasava Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– issues on merits. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →