HIMESH RAMESHCHANDRA GOHIL,BHARUCH V. ITO WARD 1(5), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 843/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Himesh Rameshchandra Gohil against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which upheld an addition of Rs.4,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 80GGC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which arose from an assessment order under sections 147 and 144B of the Act. The main issues in the appeal included the legality of the addition made, the lack of evidence and opportunity for cross-examination provided to the assessee, and the manner in which the re-opening assessment was conducted. The Tribunal noted the absence of a proper hearing and the non-speaking nature of the CIT(A)'s order, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with adequate opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831382 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOPI NATH CHAUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: RUTVIKA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट Ɋायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH (SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.843/RJT/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Himesh Rameshchandra Gohil 11, Nirav Park Society, Sevashram Road, b/h ICICI Bank, Bharuch-392 001 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Jamnagar, Income Tax Office, Taranjali Building, Nr. Amber Cinema, Jamnagar-361 008 ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AELPG 7563 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Rutvika, AR Respondent by : Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2019-20, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) [in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 30.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, on12.03.2025. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts by upholding an addition of Rs.4,00,000/- made by Ld. AO u/s 80GGC of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 843/Rjt/2025 A.Y 19-20 Himesh R Gohil Page | 2 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in upholding an action of Ld. AO which is in not providing any evidence against the assessee, statements of deponents and opportunity of cross-examination. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding re-opening assessment and assuming jurisdiction which is based on notice issued u/s 148, ought to be issued in faceless manner.” 3. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not file relevant documents and evidences before lower authorities, to prove his claim, as those documents and evidences were not available, when the proceedings were going on before the lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel further stated that now the assessee obtained those documents and additional evidences which are to be submitted before the Assessing Officer to prove his claim. Therefore, Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to plead his case before Assessing Officer, hence, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue, did not raise any objection, if the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer based on these documents and evidences, so submitted by the assessee, would adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 843/Rjt/2025 A.Y 19-20 Himesh R Gohil Page | 3 6. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits.Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall allow opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidence at the earliest possible of time before Assessing Officer as and when call for. In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/01/2026. Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखासदèय/Accountant Member राजकोट /Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 19/01/2026 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथê/ The Appellant ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 843/Rjt/2025 A.Y 19-20 Himesh R Gohil Page | 4 आयकर आयुĉ(अपील)/ The CIT(A) िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT गाडª फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,राजकोट Printed from counselvise.com "