PRAVINCHANDRA KESHRICHAND SHAH,BHARUCH V. ACIT CIRCLE 1, BHARUCH

ITA 291/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pravinchandra Keshrichand Shah, the appellant, contesting several additions made to his income by the Assessing Officer (AO) under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. The additions included disallowances of expenses, interest income, and long-term capital gains, among others. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to present arguments or submissions in support of his claims, despite multiple notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a proper opportunity of hearing and had not awaited the AO's remand report before passing the appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784077 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKUND RAO
• Keywords: Set aside; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.291/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid hearing) Pravinchandra Keshrichand Shah 103, Pritam Society No.2,Maktampur Road, Bharuch-392 002 बनाम/ Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Bharuch, F 28 Station Road, Near Indian Oil, Old Town, Bharuch-392 001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AHXPS 2972 H (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Mukund Rao, CA राजˢ की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 13/08/2025 उद ्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 11/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 05.02.2025 by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Mumbai [in short, “CIT(A)”] for assessment year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.01.2015. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under: 1. The addition made on account of disallowance of expenses Rs.9,91,893/- 2. The addition made on account of interest income Rs.23,390/- Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.291/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Pravinchandra K Shah 3. The addition made on account of LTCG by disallowing the brokerage paid from the purchase cost of property Rs.3,37,132/- 2) The appellant prays and appeals that: 1. The addition made on account of disallowance of expenses of rs.9,91,893/- be quashed. 2. The addition made on account of interest income of Rs.23,390/- be deleted. 3.The addition made on account of LTCG of Rs.3,37,132/-be deleted. 4. The notice of demand of penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 be quashed. Without prejudice to the above assessee reserves its righto make any amendment to the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. The facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 on 25.02.2013 declaring total income of Rs.97,63,140/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 23.09.2013. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 19.11.2014 asking the assessee to file various details. After verifying the details, the AO made the following additions: (i) Rs.1,05,000/- u/s 23(4)(b) of the Act; (ii) disallowance of expenses: Rs.9,91,893/-; (iii) interest income of Rs.23,390/-; (iv) long-term capital gain: Rs.3,37,132/- and (v) income from other sources: Rs.11,915/-. The total income was determined at Rs.1,12,20,554/- as against returned income of Rs.97,67,140/-. 4. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 8 notices u/s 250 of the Act during the period 20.06.2019 to 14.01.2025, as detailed in para-3 of the appellate order. The assessee did not file any reply except request for adjournment once on Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.291/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Pravinchandra K Shah 06.01.2021. Thereafter, CIT(A) reproduced the written submission filed by the assessee on 12.06.2018 at para-4 of the appellate order. He observed that the AO was also requested to submit remand report but no such report was submitted by the AO. Taking into consideration the above facts, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that the assessee has not presented any arguments or submission in support of the claims made in the grounds of appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed written submission and paper book. He submitted that the AR of the assessee attended before CIT(A) and filed submission which has not been considered by the CIT(A). He, however, admitted that no online submission was made to the Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Mumbai. He requested that the matter may be restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits of the case. 6. On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR has not opposed the prayer made by Ld. AR to set aside the matter to the file of CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submission of both parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the CIT(A) has passed ex parte order confirming all the additions made by the AO. He has also noted that remand report was not submitted by the AO. The Ld. AR requested that the order of CIT(A) may be set aside and the matter may be restored to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld. Sr-DR has also not opposed the request of the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.291/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Pravinchandra K Shah Ld.AR. He has rather agreed that the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A). After considering the facts discussed above, we are of the considered view that assessee has not been granted proper opportunity of hearing by the first appellate authority. He has not waited for the remand report of ethe AO before passing the appellate order. Hence, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest his case on merit. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and to furnish all details and explanation as needed by CIT(A) by not seeking adjournment without valid reason. With this direction, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 11/11/2025 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG ) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Æयाियक सदÖय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदÖय/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सूरत /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 11/11/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.291/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Pravinchandra K Shah आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ (अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT  गाडª फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, // True Copy // सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, सूरत Printed from counselvise.com "