MAHESHBHAI NAGJIBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(10), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no prejudice to the Revenue in giving the assessee an opportunity to present details before the Assessing Officer. The matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- for unexplained investment in property. The CIT(A) affirmed this addition, disregarding details submitted by the assessee as they were not presented before the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without considering the details provided by the assessee, and whether the case should be reopened under Section 147.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-
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 "CIT(A)" for short), dated 23.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in reopening the case of the appellant u/s 147 of the act.
2. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in confirming addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.”
3. In this case, the assessment order has been passed by the ITO, Ward 3(2)(10), Ahmedabad on 24.12.2019 determining total income of Rs.42,40,590/- against the returned income of Rs.1,50,820/- on account of investment involved in acquisition of property owing to non-furnishing of supported documents. . The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer disregarding the details filed before him on the grounds that the same were not claimed before the Assessing Officer.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, it was submitted that given an opportunity these details would be furnished before the Assessing Officer. We find that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. The ld. DR fairly accepted the proposal. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions to pass an order de novo, after considering the submissions filed by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 29.11.2024
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
