ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — June 2025

SIDHPUR EDUCATION AND WEL FARE TRUST,SIDHPUR vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 254/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed17 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(E) were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after providing a hearing.

SHRI KHAMBHAT TALUKA SARVAJANIK KELAVANI MANDAL,ANAND vs THE ITO, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

ITA 598/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay, attributing it solely to the accountant's negligence, did not constitute sufficient cause. The assessee's own lackadaisical approach and lack of bona fides were considered significant factors.

SHRI TRUSHAR PARIMALBHAI SHAH,BHAVNAGAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), BHAVNAGAR

ITA 1848/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to represent the case. This was conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days for non-compliance before the CIT(A). The assessee was also directed to regularly access his email and comply with future notices.

SIDHPUR EDUCATION AND WEL FARE TRUST,SIDHPUR PATAN vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 253/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed17 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(E) were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after providing a hearing.

JAYPRAKASH BHAGWANDAS RAIMALANI LEGAL HEIR OF BHAGWANDAS DETARAM RAIMALANI (PROP. OF M/S. BHAGWANDAS DETARAM),AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 567/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Ld. CIT(A) to serve the interests of justice. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

MODI CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 553/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable and bona fide. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

EKTA CHARITABLE TRUST,BANASKANTHA vs THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 858/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.

UPENKUMAR AMRUTJI VIHOL,VADODARA vs THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1, ANAND), VADODARA

ITA 555/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found a lack of proper inquiry by the tax authorities regarding the alleged deposits and the assessee's claims. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment and reconsideration of the penalties.

PRAMUKH METAL QUARRY,VADODARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

ITA 584/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of explaining the source of the cash deposits by furnishing books of accounts and cash flow details. The addition was based on assumptions and presumptions by the revenue authorities.

UPENKUMAR AMRUTJI VIHOL,VADODARA vs THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1, ANAND), VADODARA

ITA 556/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found a lack of proper inquiry by the tax authorities regarding the alleged deposits and the assessee's claims. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment and reconsideration of the penalties.

MODI CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 552/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable and bona fide. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

EKTA CHARITABLE TRUST,BANASKANTHA vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 857/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.

UPENKUMAR AMRUTJI VIHOL,VADODARA vs THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

ITA 554/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found a lack of proper inquiry by the tax authorities regarding the alleged deposits and the assessee's claims. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment and reconsideration of the penalties.

KUSUMBEN RAJENDRAKUMAR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 244/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the assessment needed to be redone. It found that the assessee had provided details regarding the genuineness of purchases to the Jurisdictional AO, but these were not forwarded or considered by the assessment unit. Furthermore, the assessment unit had conducted inquiries regarding sales, finding them suspicious, but this adverse material was not confronted to the assessee. The Tribunal held that the addition was made without a fair opportunity of hearing and in violation of natural justice. It also noted that while both purchases and sales were found suspicious, the addition was only made on account of purchases, which was inconsistent with the finding that the entire business conduct was bogus. Therefore, the assessment was deemed ad hoc. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to redo the assessment afresh, providing the assessee a due opportunity of hearing, confronting all materials, and adhering to natural justice principles.

SH. BHAVESHKUMAR GANSHYAM PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

ITA 951/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to bona fide reasons and procedural misunderstandings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

ABBASI VOHRA,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 911/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-compliance before the CIT(A) unconvincing due to his failure to check his email account regularly. Consequently, the tribunal imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to allow another opportunity.

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEBABAD vs VIJAY MANUBHAI HIRPARA, AHMEDABAD

ITA 668/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Jun 2025AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly allowed the assessee's appeal as the order under Section 263 was set aside by ITAT, making the consequential assessment order void. The additions on merits were not adjudicated by the CIT(A) as the assessment order itself was void.

ANISHA RAOOF DHANANI,MUMBAI vs THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

ITA 744/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Jun 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 on 29.07.2022 was barred by limitation, as the period for issuing such notice had expired on 31.03.2022. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order.

SHRI NAMINATH JAIN DERASAR TRUST,MEHSANA vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 201/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection by the CIT(Exemption) was mechanical, failing to consider the merits of the case or the documents submitted. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter for fresh examination.

SHRI SHENALMA GAUSHALA TRUST,BANASKANTHA vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 94/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and bonafide, supported by a notarised affidavit and in the absence of objection from the Revenue. Regarding the rejection of applications, the Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s orders were founded solely on procedural grounds, specifically the assessee's failure to respond to notices. However, the assessee offered a credible explanation for non-compliance due to genuine constraints arising from its rural location and lack of digital infrastructure. The Tribunal noted that the delay and default were neither deliberate nor contumacious. The prompt filing of appeals upon discovering the adverse orders and the availability of audited financial statements and relevant documents in prior proceedings lent credence to the assessee's case. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided that the assessee deserved an effective opportunity of hearing. Consequently, both impugned orders of the CIT(Exemption) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication on merits after affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

SHRI UMEDKUMAR MANDIR TRUST,NADIAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 139/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025Remanded

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT(Exemption) suffered from material deficiencies and procedural lapses. Specifically, the CIT(Exemption) failed to provide reasons for rejecting the assessee's detailed reply and supporting documentation, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(Exemption) also erred by relying solely on a literal reading of certain terms in the trust deed without appreciating the trust's actual functioning or analyzing the submitted financial statements and activity reports. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not correlate the legal provisions with the facts of the case and failed to deal with the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee. The role of the CIT(Exemption) includes verifying the genuineness of activities and the application of funds, a responsibility not discharged in this instance. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to consider the assessee's reply and all placed material, examine financial statements and activity reports, and pass a reasoned order. The assessee was to be given an opportunity to be heard and furnish additional evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD., AHMEDABAD vs NEPTUNE OVERSEAS LTD., ASHRAM ROAD

ITA 253/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the assessment order, finding it mechanical and casual. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the reassessment was initiated on grounds different from the additions made, and the AO failed to provide a remand report on additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

DEWARKADHISH DEVELOPERS,BHARUCH vs THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

ITA 635/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer was within the statutory powers granted by amended Sections 153(3) and 251(1)(a). The appeals were dismissed as premature because the assessee had not participated in the fresh assessment proceedings ordered by the CIT(A).

DEWARKADHISH DEVELOPERS,BHARUCH vs THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

ITA 636/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer was within the statutory powers granted by amended Sections 153(3) and 251(1)(a). The appeals were dismissed as premature because the assessee had not participated in the fresh assessment proceedings ordered by the CIT(A).

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1830/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse and should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, particularly when the delay has been condoned by the jurisdictional CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b). The Tribunal noted that condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) relates back to the original date of filing and cures the technical defect ab initio, giving it retroactive effect, as supported by the maxim 'ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur' and the Supreme Court's decision in National Institute of Technology vs. Pannalal Choudhary. The Tribunal also referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Association of Indian Panelboard Manufacturing vs. DCIT, which held that the requirement of law is satisfied if the audit report is available before the conclusion of assessment proceedings. Given that the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the Ld. CIT(E) before the conclusion of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), and the assessee has consistently been granted exemption for subsequent years, the denial of exemption by the lower authorities was unjustified. The Tribunal allowed both appeals.

DEWARKADHISH DEVELOPERS,BHARUCH vs THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

ITA 637/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer was within the statutory powers granted by amended Sections 153(3) and 251(1)(a). The appeals were dismissed as premature because the assessee had not participated in the fresh assessment proceedings ordered by the CIT(A).

HEALTH FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE,DAHOD vs THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

ITA 483/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was procedural and condonable, as the audit was completed in time and there were no adverse findings on the trust's activities. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was also condoned.

GFL LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD.),VADODARA vs THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

ITA 210/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed considered the issue of the 80IA deduction during the assessment proceedings. Furthermore, the PCIT failed to consider the assessee's submissions during the Section 263 proceedings, thus violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was liable to be set aside.

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1590/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly dealt with the assessee's detailed submissions and evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

SHRI SHENALMA GAUSHALA TRUST,BANASKANTHA vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 95/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications by the CIT(Exemption) in both cases was based solely on procedural grounds, specifically the assessee's failure to respond to statutory notices. However, the assessee provided a credible explanation for this non-compliance, citing genuine constraints due to its rural location and lack of digital infrastructure. The Tribunal found that the delay and default were neither deliberate nor contumacious. The prompt filing of appeals upon discovering the adverse orders indicated bona fide conduct. Furthermore, the trust had previously submitted audited financial statements and relevant documents, which were available to the CIT(Exemption). Considering these circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee deserved an effective opportunity of hearing. Consequently, both impugned orders dated 03.09.2024 (under section 12A) and 14.10.2024 (under section 80G) were set aside. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication after affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

DASHRATHBHAI MADHUBHAI JADAV,AHMEDABAD vs ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 653/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided adequate reasons for non-compliance due to technical difficulties and lack of awareness. Justice demands that the matter be restored for de novo consideration.

DCIT, CC-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs SHANI PRAHLADBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1329/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmation letters from the lender, bank statements, the lender's Income Tax Return, and statement of total income. These documents established the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transactions, and the creditworthiness of the creditor. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not doubted the partial repayment of the loan by the assessee during the assessment year and the subsequent assessment year, with appropriate TDS. The Tribunal respectfully followed the ratio of the judgments rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji, CIT vs. Shri Mahavir Crimpers, DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, and ITO vs. Shanti Enterprise, which held that once primary documents are provided, the onus shifts to the revenue, and in the absence of contradictory evidence, additions under Section 68 are not justified. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

KAUTILAYA EDURCHAR TRUST,BHAVNAGAR vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 496/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the technical ground of incorrect section code, without affording an opportunity to rectify, was unsustainable. Following CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, procedural errors should not defeat substantive rights.

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1831/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that a delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse that should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11, especially when the delay was subsequently condoned. The condonation has a retroactive effect.

ARUNA KISHOR FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 293/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s rejection of the 12AB application was based on an unverified assumption and without adequate opportunity. The 80G rejection was also found to be non-speaking and lacking independent adjudication. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to a bona fide error by the assessee.

ARUNA KISHOR FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 323/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s rejection of the 12AB application was based on an unverified assumption and without adequate opportunity. The 80G rejection was also found to be non-speaking and lacking independent adjudication. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to a bona fide error by the assessee.

ARUNA KISHOR FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 324/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s rejection of the 12AB application was based on an unverified assumption and without adequate opportunity. The 80G rejection was also found to be non-speaking and lacking independent adjudication. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to a bona fide error by the assessee.

ARUNA KISHORE FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 294/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s rejection of the 12AB application was based on an unverified assumption and without adequate opportunity. The 80G rejection was also found to be non-speaking and lacking independent adjudication. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to a bona fide error by the assessee.

LEUVA PATIDAR SAMAJ SEVA TRUST ODE,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1082/AHD/2024[NA]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025Remanded

The Tribunal held that section 13(1)(b) is not applicable at the stage of granting registration for trusts created before April 1, 2021. The CIT(E) should have examined the actual application of income rather than solely relying on the trust deed's wording.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD vs SANKALP VENTURE LLP, AHMEDABAD

ITA 481/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that taxes should be levied on real income and that the CIT(A) had correctly estimated the profit margin at 14% on unaccounted receipts. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of unaccounted expenses.

RADHE FINSEC INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 506/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 2490 days, imposing a cost on the assessee. It held that a meritorious case should not be thrown out on technical grounds and that the matter should be decided on merits.

SANKALP ORGANISERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

ITA 435/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that taxes should be levied on real income and not arbitrarily. It partially allowed the assessee's appeals by estimating the profit on unaccounted receipts at 14% and dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning certain deletions made by the CIT(A).

SANKALP VENTURE LLP,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

ITA 436/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that taxes should be levied on real income and not arbitrarily. It partially allowed the assessee's appeals by estimating the profit on unaccounted receipts at 14% and dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning certain deletions made by the CIT(A).

ARVINDBHAI PUNABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1998/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. The assessee failed to respond to specific questionnaires issued by the CIT(A), admitting this omission as an oversight. The Tribunal found that legal arguments must be supported by facts, and in the absence of documentary or evidentiary support, the appellate authority cannot be faulted for dismissing the appeal. The grievance that the CIT(A) failed to consider submissions was deemed devoid of merit as they were not accompanied by new facts or explanations. Regarding the addition under section 68, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s action of dismissing the appeal in limine. However, the Tribunal considered the assessee's alternative plea for estimation of income as commission, citing consistency with AY 2012-13. The Tribunal found this plea prima facie acceptable but not straightaway adjudicable at the Tribunal stage due to lack of factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of cash deposits, ascertain if accommodation entries were provided, and if similar to AY 2012-13, estimate commission income. The addition under section 68 was not deleted outright, but the quantum was set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

SHARNYA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1617/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer, particularly for share capital and long-term borrowings, were not sustainable in law as they were made without verifying the replies and documents submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee could not participate in the appeal before the CIT(A) due to miscommunication.

VINUBHAI JAYANTIBHAI SAGAR,SABARKANTHA vs THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

ITA 492/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the 398-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances and the Revenue's no objection. The CIT(A) is directed to issue physical hearing notices and decide the appeal on merits.

VIJAY INDUBHAI SHETH,SATELLITE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), VEJALPUR

ITA 780/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 772 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that FTC cannot be denied for belated filing. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the FTC claim.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs SANKALP ORGANISERS PVT LTD , AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 80/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs SANKALP ORGANISERS PVT LTD, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 79/AHD/2023[2017-2018]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs SANKALP ORGANISERS PVT LTD, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 78/AHD/2023[2015-2016]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.