BHARATKUMAR KANTIJI THAKOR,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was passed without proper adjudication of the issues. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the order of the NFAC for AY 2010-11. The NFAC had summarily dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the additions made by the lower authorities were justified. The primary issue was the NFAC's failure to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 69A,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Asstt.Year : 2010-11 Bharatkumar Kantiji Thakor ITO, Ward-1 113-1, Koteshwar Gam Vs Gandhinagar. Vadvalo Vas Motera Gam Gandhinagar. PAN : AKGPT 9389 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee by Shri Parin Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणा क� तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश
This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.05.2024 for the Asst.Year 2010-11 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short).
2. The grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are as under:
The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.
The reopening of assessment u/s 148 is bad in law as same has been done for verification purpose only for making fishing and roving inquiries.
3. The reopening of assessment u/s 148 is bad in law as same has been done without recording escapement of income. 4. The reopening of assessment u/s 148 is bad in law as same has been reopened beyond period of 4 years from the end of assessment year without recording satisfaction of failure on part of appellant to disclose fully and truly material facts. 5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.13.54,783/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.2,66,566/- on account of capital gain by replacing cost of acquisition without referring the same to valuation officer.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.1,25,765/- by treating investment made as unexplained investment.
Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.72,153/- by invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 9. The order passed by NFAC is in violation of section 250(6) of the Act and accordingly, same may be set aside to adjudicate on merits. 10. Charging of Interest u's 234A.234B,234C & 234D are unjustified. 11. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) is unjustified.
On through the order of the ld.CIT(A) it is found that the appeal of the assessee has been summarily dismissed without adjudicating the issue on merits. Hence, in the fitness of things, the case is hereby remanded back to the AO for adjudicating the issue afresh. In the set aside proceedings, the assessee shall co-operate with the Revenue authorities and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Dictated on the Open Court, typed and pronounced on 7th October, 2024.
Copy of this order be given to the assessee. The Registry is directed to dispatch as per procedure.
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
