PANKAJKUMAR N. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the assessee is given an opportunity to make submissions before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return of income was processed, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of bank loan, proprietor's capital account, and agricultural income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present submissions before the AO for reassessment proceedings and additions made under various sections.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMARMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2012-13 Pankajkumar N. Patel The ITO बनाम/ A-204, Green Leaves, Ward-1 v/s. Science City Road Ahmedabad – 384 265 Sola, Ahmedabad – 380 060 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ABZPP 0368 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parin S. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R
PER DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CITA] , National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in proceeding u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 11/01/2024 passed for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
The grounds of appeal
taken by the assessee are as under:-
1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. Pankajkumar N. Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 2 Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts reopening in of assessment u/s 148 of the Act ignoring fact that there is no escapement of income and case has been reopened for making fishing and roving inquiries.
3 Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of unexplained investment of Rs.702667/- u/s69A of the Act.
4, Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1808774/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A ignoring fact that section does not have applicability.
Initiation of penalty proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act. u/s 6. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C are unjustified.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the year under consideration by declaring total income of Rs.2,46,200/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) ongoing to non-compliance of the notice issued to the assessee. The addition has been made on account of bank loan on proprietor’s capital account on an agricultural income.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that due confirmations could not be filed owing to reasons beyond assessee’s control and ill-health of family members of the assessee. The assessee pleaded that given an opportunity, due to compliance would be made before the AO, where the primary default has occurred. Thus, keeping in view, we hold that no prejudice is caused to the Revenue if an opportunity is given to the assessee to make his submissions before the AO. Hence, the matter is remanded to the AO to consider the submissions made by the assessee. Pankajkumar N. Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13
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 →- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Padu Paraja vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Sanatan Bal vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026