PINKESH SURESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

ITA 44/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pinkesh Sureshbhai Patel, the appellant, contesting the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the CIT(A) regarding the assessment year 2011-12. The primary contention revolves around the alleged unaccounted cash payments and receipts amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 respectively, which were added to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the handling of the appeal by the CIT(A), particularly the lack of proper notice to the assessee, and thus remanded the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717181 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID MODE) BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.44/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Pinkesh Sureshbhai Patel, 42, Sahajdham Row House, Honey Park Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat [PAN No.AFVPP6804R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2025 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 21.07.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in re-opening assessment u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted cash payments. 5. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted cash receipts. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 44/Srt/2025 Pinkesh Sureshbhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2011-12 - 2– 6. It is therefore prayed that addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 45,01,360/-. As per information the Assessing Officer found that the assesse advanced loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Shri Ketan M Patel in cash during the year under consideration which was returned later. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer reopened the case and initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2018 and in response to the said notice the assessee filed reply dated 16.04.2018 stating therein to treat the original return of income filed in response to the said notice. Subsequently, the statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued and the assessee filed reply dated 12.12.2018 thereby stating that he had not given any loan to Ketan M Patel. The assessee issued show-cause notice dated 14.12.2018 which was replied by the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2018. After taking cognizance of the said letter / reply the Assessing Officer observed that from the seized material found during the course of search action which was carried out at the premises of Shri Ketan M Patel it was found that in the details of loan that the Ketan M Patel has taken a loan from Shri Pinkesh Patel and subsequently rebut the same. Since the assessee has not repeated this fact the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- thereby treating the same as unaccounted cash payments (interest of Rs. 2,00,000/- on this loan at 2% treating the same as unaccounted receipts). 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 44/Srt/2025 Pinkesh Sureshbhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2011-12 - 3– 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not issued any notice to the email address given in under the column of Form 35. Therefore, the Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues on merit and the assessee be given opportunity of hearing. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not commented on the merits of the case and simply dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Besides this the notices for hearing was not issued at the proper email address thus, the CIT(A) has not given the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested by the assessee therein after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT(A) thereafter adjudicate the issue as per Income Tax Law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 20/08/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 20/08/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 44/Srt/2025 Pinkesh Sureshbhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2011-12 - 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, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / ITAT, Surat 1. Date of dictation 20.08.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 20.08.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .08.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 20.08.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 20.08.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 20.08.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "