BHARATKUMAR CHANDRAKANT PATEL,VADODARA V. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1) NOW DY.CIT, CENT. CIR.2, VADODARA

ITA 1785/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Bharatkumar Chandrakant Patel, the assessee, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad, which confirmed the addition of Rs.1,33,33,333 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on statements suggesting that the assessee received a portion of cash from a land sale, which he denied. The Assessing Officer's rejection of the assessee's request for cross-examination and reliance on circumstantial evidence were contested. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices, which the assessee attributed to a mismatch in email addresses. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and thus restored the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787539 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K. PATEL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 142(1); 132

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ]BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1785/Ahd/2025 Asstt.Year : 2011-12 Bharatkumar Chandrakant Patel A/30, Shreeji Bunglow Sun Pharma Road Atladra Vadodara. PAN : ACQPP 8872 K Vs. The DCIT, Cir.1(2)(1) Vadodara. (Now assessed to Dy.CIT Cent.Cir.2 Vadodara. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR Revenue by : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/11/2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad -12 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 07.08.2025, for the Assessment Year 2011– 12 arising out of assessment framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(2)(1), Vadodara [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 142(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] vide order dated 13.12.2018. 2. Facts of the Case: 2.1 The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011–12 on 08.02.2012 declaring total income of Rs.10,55,980/-. The return was processed under section 143(1). Information was received through the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1785/Ahd/2025 2 appraisal report of search under section 132 conducted in the Diamond Cable Group on 15.03.2012. Statements of Shri Amit Bhatnagar were recorded under section 132(4) and those of Shri Rajesh Nimakar under section 131(1A). The statements suggested that land behind Miles Motors, Atladra, Baroda was allegedly agreed to be sold for Rs. 12 crore, out of which Rs. 8 crore was stated to be payable by cheque and Rs.4 crore in cash. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee, being one of the co-owners, received one-third of such alleged cash component amounting to Rs.1,33,33,333/-. Notice under section 148 dated 29.03.2018 was issued after approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 2.2 The assessee filed return in response and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee objected to the reopening and denied receipt of any cash. The assessee submitted that the statements relied upon did not specify any date, time, or person to whom alleged cash was paid, and no document or seized material referred to any such payment to the assessee. It was also pointed out that the registered sale deed was executed for Rs. 8.25 crore, not Rs. 12 crore as stated in the statements. 2.3 The assessee repeatedly requested copies of the statements and cross-examination of Shri Amit Bhatnagar and Shri Rajesh Nimakar. 2.4 The Assessing Officer rejected the request for cross-examination, holding that principles of natural justice did not require cross-examination in every case and that statements recorded on oath had evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer placed reliance on preponderance of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. The Assessing Officer treated Rs.1,33,33,333/- as unexplained money under section 69A and completed reassessment. 2.5 The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued four notices of hearing under section 250 : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1785/Ahd/2025 3 1. Notice dated 22.01.2021 fixing hearing on 29.01.2021 2. Notice dated 18.01.2022 fixing hearing on 25.01.2022 3. Notice dated 19.07.2023 fixing hearing on 03.08.2023 4. Notice dated 25.06.2025 fixing hearing on 18.07.2025 2.6 There was no compliance to the above notices. The CIT(A), stating that sufficient opportunity was provided, dismissed the appeal ex parte. The CIT(A) held that there was no infirmity in the action of the Assessing Officer and summarily confirmed the addition of Rs.1,33,33,333/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not giving proper opportunity to the appellant and erred in passing the order dismissing the appeal on the ground of nonattendance by issuing only one notice dated 25.06.2025 after a period of two years which was not attended by the appellant through oversight. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that there is no infirmity in the action of the Assessing Officer. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,33,33,333/- merely on the contentions raised in the order of the Assessing Officer without considering the reply furnished by the appellant which is reproduced in the assessment order by the Learned Assessing Officer. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,33,33,333/- without any basis and without there being any cogent material evidences except statement u/s 132(4) of Shri Amit Bhatnagar. 5. The appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to bona fide reasons. It was explained that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were not received because the email address selected in Form No. 35, with an option to receive all communications electronically, was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1785/Ahd/2025 4 different from the email address registered on the Income Tax Portal. The notices were therefore transmitted to an email address not being actively monitored. 4.1 The learned AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits. The detailed submissions made before the Assessing Officer, as reproduced in the assessment order itself, have not been considered. It was therefore prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. 5. The learned Departmental Representative did not object to the request of the assessee for restoration. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the record. The appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is ex parte in nature. Although notices were issued on four occasions, the CIT(A) has not examined the appeal on merits. The order contains no evaluation of the material available on record, no discussion of the submissions reproduced in the assessment order, and no findings on the substantive issues raised. 6.1 When the grounds of appeal challenge the validity of reopening, reliance on third-party statements, denial of cross-examination, and the absence of incriminating material in assessee’s case it is incumbent upon the first appellate authority to adjudicate these issues in accordance with law. An order devoid of merits-based findings is not sustainable. 6.2 The assessee has explained the non-compliance caused by mismatch of email addresses, and the Revenue has not objected to remand. In the interest of justice, and considering the nature of issues involved, we consider it appropriate to restore the matter. 6.3 We set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1785/Ahd/2025 5 providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall cooperate in the appellate proceedings. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 19th November, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 19/11/2025 vk* Printed from counselvise.com "