BANKIMCHANDRA BIPINCHANDRA KINKHABWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1 (2) (6), SURAT, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1284/SRT/2024Status: HeardITAT Surat19 January 2026AY 2010-11Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's plea to furnish all details, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with notices without seeking adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 10,36,337/-. The CIT(A) had passed the ex-parte order as the assessee failed to furnish requisite details despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and if the addition confirmed was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

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

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr DR
Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 19.01.2026

O R D E R

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

1.

- This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

2. The. Addl/JCIT (A)-6, Kolkata has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.10,36,337/-.”

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded several opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate his claim. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, Bankimchandra Bipinchandra Kinkhabwala Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2010-11 - 2– the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by an ex-parte order. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, 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 to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Ld.CIT(A) and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

4.

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

Heard, dictated and pronounced in the open Court today on 19.01.2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →