HABIBBHAI PYARBHAI MOMIN,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1) PRESENT ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1889/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Habibbhai Pyarbhai Momin, the appellant, contesting an appellate order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary contention revolves around the dismissal of the appeal due to a delay of 389 days in filing, attributed to the assessee's lack of education and the negligence of his counsel. Additionally, the appellant challenged the re-assessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing the lack of jurisdiction and the invalidity of the notice issued. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for a de novo assessment, considering the procedural lapses and the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791903 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1889/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Habibbhai Pyarbhai Momin, Gibpura, Nr. Gibpura School, Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad-382110. [PAN :BACPM8217 N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Present Jurisdiction Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri PF Jain, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in Law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay of 389 days in filing appeal without appreciating the reason of delay mentioned at serial no.14 & 15 of the appeal memo explaining that the assessee is not much educated and the counsel to whom work was assigned did not pursue the matter resulting into un intended delay. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1889/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– 2. He has grievously erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal as per appeal memo as re-produced below. (a): The learned A.O. has grievously erred in law and on facts in resorting to re- assessment proceeding u/s. 147 and by issuing notice u/s. 148 submitted to be bad in Law and on facts in as much as that conditions envisaged u/s. 147/148 are not fulfilled and there is no valid assumption of Jurisdiction as there is no such purchase of property of Rs. 1.44 Crore. (b): The re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 are submitted to be bad in law as copy of approval u/s. 151 has not been provided to the assessee. (c): The A.O. has erred in law and on facts in passing ex-parte order u/s. 144 for alleged purchase of immovable property in as much as that as per assessee no such property of rs.1.44 Crore has been purchased by him rendering the addition of rs. 1.44 Crore u/s. 69 as erroneous factually as well as legally. (d): He has erred in law and on facts in applying provision of section 115BBE to the facts of the assessee when here is no purchase of any such property warranting addition u/s. 69 to be taxed u/s. 115BBE. (e): As addition has been made without any basis and there being no property of Rs. 1.44 Crore alleged to have been purchased by the assessee the entire tax demand of Rs.1,39,53,852 as per computation of sheet dated 23.02.2024 is also denied. (f): On the facts of the assessee and there being по purchase of property of Rs. 1.44 Crore as alleged by the A.O. no such addition ought to have been made. (g): The re-assessment proceedings are also submitted to be legally invalid as notice u/s. 148 has been issued by JAO and order has been passed by FAO which has been held to be invalid as per decisions of various High Court. (h): The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and or modify any grounds of appeal. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in not considering the written submissions along with relevant documents dated 26/06/2025 09/07/2025, 21/08/2025 and 12/09/2025 made to him in as much as that the assessee has denied purchase of property of Rs. 1.44 Crore and non supply of relevant documents despite specific application with filing fees made to the A.O. to furnish the relevant documents. 4. On the facts of the assessee when there is no purchase of property no addition ought to have been made. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1889/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 3– 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or to modify any grounds of appeal. 3. On perusal of the record, we find that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. We further note that the assessee had not complied even during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12.12.2025. S /- Sd /- Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True C (True Copy)opy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 12.12.2025 MV Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1889/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 4– आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "