HIRALBEN RAVIBHAI KSHATRIYA,AHMEDABAD V. ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1321/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Hiralben Ravibhai Kshatriya, the appellant, contesting the decisions made by the lower tax authorities regarding the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary issues raised included the validity of the order passed by the lower authorities, the legality of the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 3,761,920 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The appellant also challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority had dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, which was not sufficiently explained by the appellant. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the lower authority's decision and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783532 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVINDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN S SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1321/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Hiralben Ravibhai Kshatriya, 32, Amidhara Society, Bopal Daskrol, Ahmedabad-380058. [PAN :CXVPK9950 M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parin S Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. The reopening of Assessing u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law and required to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1321/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming reopening of assessment without observing escapement merely for verification purpose. 4. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.3761920/- u/s.69 of the Act by treating same as unexplained investment ignoring submission of appellant. 5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in not passing order as per the provision of section 250(6) of the Act. 6. Ld. NFAC ought to have condone the delay in filing appeal before him considering bona fide of the appellant. 7. Initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AAC of the Act is unjustified. 8. Charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is unjustified. 9. The appellant craves to add, to alter, to substitute, to amend any ground/grounds of appeal at any time of hearing of the appeal is occasion arises. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1321/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– 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 04.11.2025. S /- Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True C (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 04.11.2025 MV 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 "