JAGDISH INDRAVADAN THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD V. ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 217/AHD/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Jagdish Indravadan Thakkar, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which upheld the disallowance of purchases amounting to Rs. 67,76,525 as non-genuine under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The reassessment was based on allegations of bogus purchases. The initial assessment added this amount to the appellant's income, which was later upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant's appeal to the ITAT argued that the CIT(A) had dismissed his case without proper examination on merits, due to his non-compliance in previous hearings. The ITAT, while acknowledging the procedural lapses, provided an opportunity for the appellant to present his case again, emphasizing the importance of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841625 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAMAL DEEP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMIR VORA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 217/AHD/2026 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Jagdish Indravadan Thakkar, 39, Radhe Kishan Villa, 132 Ft. Ring Road, Nr. Jaimala, Isanpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382443 [PAN – ACTPT9236E] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward – 3(2)(1) Ahmedabad – 380014 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Samir Vora, AR Revenue by Shri Kamal Deep Singh, SR-DR Date of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2026 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], dated 30.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information that it had made bogus purchases from certain concerns. In the course of assessment, the AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and the purchase of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 217/Ahd/2026 Jagdish Indravadan Thakkar Vs. ITO 2 Rs.67,76,525/- was held as bogus and added to income. The assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 27.02.2024 at total income of Rs.73,36,705/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal. 1 The order passed u/s.250 on 30.12.2025 for A.Y.2018-19 by NFAC, CIT(A) Delhi [for short \"CIT(A)] upholding disallowance of purchases to the extent of Rs. 67,76,525/- u/s 37 of the Act as non-genuine is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that there was reasonable cause for failure to respond on earlier three occasions and The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed further opportunity of hearing or in alternative, informed the fate of the adjournment application. Thus there was gross violation of principles of natural justice and the appellant should be allowed to produce additional evidence under Rule 24 of ITAT Rules. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned addition before FAO. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of purchases to the extent of Rs. 67,76,525/- u/s 37 of the Act as non-genuine. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld disallowance of purchases to the extent of Rs. 67,76,525/- u/s 37 of the Act as non-genuine. It is, therefore, prayed that the disallowance of purchases to the extent of Rs 67,76,525/- upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 217/Ahd/2026 Jagdish Indravadan Thakkar Vs. ITO 3 5. Shri Samir Vora, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted at the outset that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, he had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without examining the issue on merits. He, therefore, requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity by setting aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 6. Per contra, Shri Kamal Deep Singh, the Ld. SR-DR, supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. It is found that Ld. CIT(A) had allowed four opportunities to the assessee but no compliance was made except seeking an adjournment on the last date of hearing. It is also not the case that the assessee was not aware about the on-going proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has not given any explanation for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its matter and to file the submissions in respect of the grounds as taken in the first appeal. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of set- aside proceeding. In case the assessee does not make compliance, the Ld. CIT(A) will have liberty to decide the matter on merits on the basis of evidence and material as available on record. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 217/Ahd/2026 Jagdish Indravadan Thakkar Vs. ITO 4 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 25/02/2026 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated - 25th February, 2026 Neelesh True Copy आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश क\u0002 क\u0002 क\u0002 क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप \u0003ितिलिप \u0003ितिलिप \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत अ ेिषत अ ेिषत अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b यथ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड\u0014 फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप उप उप उप/सहायक सहायक सहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार पंजीकार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "