NAVKAR URBANSTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD , GUJARAT V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR -2(2),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD ,GUJARAT

ITA 117/AHD/2026

AI Insights

Navkar Urbanstructure Ltd. appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed their earlier appeal regarding the reassessment of their income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary contention was the alleged issuance of an illegal notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, based on which substantial additions to their income were made. The Tribunal noted that despite multiple opportunities given to the assessee, there was non-compliance in presenting their case before the CIT(A). However, recognizing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, contingent upon the payment of a specified cost.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839043 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALPESH PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASEEM L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 117/AHD/2026 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Navkar Urbanstructure Ltd., 304, Circle-P, Nr. Prahladnagar Garden, S.G. Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380051 [PAN – AAACN7211P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle – 2(2), Ahmedabad - 380009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Aseem L Thakkar, AR Revenue by Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Ahmedabad – 12, [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], dated 25.11.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 20.02.2019 disclosing income of Rs.1,19,05,140/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, to examine the bogus purchase of Rs.22,61,75,832/-. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 117/Ahd/2026 Navkar Urbanstructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT, AY-2018-19 2 assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.03.2023 at total income of Rs. 28,19,74,263/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by 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 learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an Ex parte order dismissing the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s 148 of the 1.T.Act, 1961 only on the basis of dissemination report and information that the assessee has claimed expenses for alleged bogus purchases from Sarvada Marketing Pvt. Ltd. which is not correct and hence notice issued based on incorrect facts, doubts and suspicion is illegal and bad in law hence the same should be quashed. . 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the IT. Act, 1961 based on illegal notice requires to be cancelled 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.27.00,69,123/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the purchases from M/s. Blue Sea Commodities as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT. Act 1961 and taxing the same applying the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. . 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 27.00.69.123/- made by the Assessing Officer for the purchases when the same has already been considered Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 117/Ahd/2026 Navkar Urbanstructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT, AY-2018-19 3 while computing the total income at Rs.1,19,05,140/-as per return of income filed on 30.11.2022. Hence this results in taxing the same twice. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in making additions without rejecting the audited books accounts of the appellant u/s.145 of the Act and without pointing out any specific defect therein. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in making additions for the purchases holding the same as non genuine when the sales in audited books of accounts have been accepted by him as genuine. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 5. Shri Aseem L Thakkar, the Ld. A.R 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 adjudicating the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. He, therefore, requested that another opportunity may be allowed to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 6. Per contra, Shri Alpesh Parmar, the Ld. CIT-DR, supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). He, however, had no objection if the matter was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee. 7. We have considered the request of the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed as many as 13 opportunities to the assessee. The assessee had sought adjournment on these occasions and thus was well aware of the on-going proceeding before the Ld. CIT(A), still no compliance was made before him. The assessee has failed to explain the reason for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, deem it Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 117/Ahd/2026 Navkar Urbanstructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT, AY-2018-19 4 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 and thereafter adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. 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 adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merits on the basis of materials available on record. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 20/02/2026 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 20th 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) Printed from counselvise.com "