AATASH NOTCONTROL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD V. THE DY.CIT, CIRLCE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1996/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Aatash Norcontrol Limited appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was passed ex-parte and without adjudicating the merits of the case. The primary issues raised included the improper re-opening of assessment under section 147, disallowance of bad debts, and procedural lapses in issuing notices under section 142(1). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the factual aspects and submissions made by the assessee, particularly concerning the projects undertaken with the Gujarat Maritime Board. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829480 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ahmedabad
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala in Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 142(1); 37; 28

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1996/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Aatash Norcontrol Limited, 213, Devarc Commercial Complex, Nr. Iscon Circle, Jodhpur Charrasta, S.O. SG Highway, Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN : AAFCA 9471 R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr Advocate, & Shri Kushal Fofaria, AR Respondent represented by: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the case resulting in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and is not permissible either in law or on facts. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,31,16,367/-only on the basis of allegations. 5. Alternatively and without prejudice, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the expense which is allowable u/s 28 and 37 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1996/Ahd/2025 - Aatash Notcontrol Limited Vs. DCIT Asst.Year :2019-20 - 2– 6. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, as transfer from Faceless Assessing Officer to JOA is not proper as per law specified u/s 144B(8) of the Act, hence resultant order is bad in law. 7. The Ld. AO has passed the order without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time-to-time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the Ld. AO is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in this case. The Ld. DR placed before us an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala in Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2020 and argued that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has got an impact on the adjudication of the case. 4. Rebutting the submissions of the Ld. DR, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had undertaken two separate projects with the Gujarat Maritime Board, one at Gulf of Kutch and another at the Gulf of Khambat. It was submitted that the allegations referred to by the Revenue pertain to the project at the Gulf of Khambat, whereas the transactions involved in the present appeal relate to the Gulf of Kutch project. It was further submitted that these vital factual aspects were neither examined by the Assessing Officer nor considered by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it was pleaded that in the interest of justice, the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a reasoned speaking order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall submit all the evidences which they rely upon in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Heard, dictated and pronounced in the open court today on 13.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 13.01.2026 **btk Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1996/Ahd/2025 - Aatash Notcontrol Limited Vs. DCIT Asst.Year :2019-20 - 3– आदेशकी\u0007ितिलिपअ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/ The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु\u0015/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु\u0015(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय\bितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation … …dictated in the open court on..13.01.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ….13.01.2026 3. Other Member…13.01.2026 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…..1301.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…..13.01.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S….13.01.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk …13.01.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "