CHHAGANBHAI TIDABHAI SAKARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1427/SRT/2025Status: HeardITAT Surat23 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details and documents before the AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to furnish requisite explanations and documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). Consequently, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's action and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's failure to provide sufficient documentation and explanations warrants dismissal of the appeal, or if a further opportunity should be granted.

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 RAGHUNATH KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 23.01.2026

(Assessment Year: 2016-17) Chhaganbhai Tidabhai Sakaria, ITO, 36, Adarsh Society, Near Vs. Ward – 1(3)(1), Adventist School, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395001 Jurisdictional AO: [PAN: ACIPP2275Q] ITO, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, CA Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 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 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 01.03.2024, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing given by the Assessing Officer, but the assessee failed to furnish requisite explanations and reply before the AO. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also find that the assessee remained non-compliant before the AO and failed to furnish Asst. Year: 2016-17 - 2– requisite documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may be given, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished before 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 AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant details and documents before the AO without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

3.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →