SOLACE INN,AHMEDABAD V. ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1623/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Solace Inn against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2020-21. The primary issues in the appeal included the non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the CIT(A) and the additions made under sections 56(2)(x) and 69 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed whether the notices were served to the assessee and decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination and fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787152 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UDAY KISHANRAO KAKNE
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH J. SHAH; RUSHIN PATEL; A.RS
• Keywords: Tax effect; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Solace Inn, Vraj Building, Mehta Chamber Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN: ADEFS1107K (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3) Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.Rs. Revenue by: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 06-10-2025 Date of pronouncement : 17-11-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 16-07- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2020-21. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- Sl. No. Grounds of appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in not condoning the delay in filing appeal. Rs. 1,23,78,040/- 2 The ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 98,02,874/-u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act. Rs.34,18,907/- ITA No.1623/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-21 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1623/Ahd/2025 Solace Inn, A.Y. 2020-21 2 3 The ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of Rs.1,14,86,068/-u/s.69 of the Act. Rs.89,59,133/- 4 The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. Total tax effect Rs. 1,23,78,040/- 3. The assessee is a firm and filed its return of income for assessment year 2020-21 on 10-01-2021 declaring total income at Rs. nil and claimed current year business loss at Rs. 18,915/- . The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 29-06-2021. The assessee was given several opportunities but assessee has not responded the same, therefore the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 98,02,874/- as per provisos of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). On merit, the ld. A.R. submitted that the addition of Rs. 98,02,874/- u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act was not justified. The addition of Rs. 1,14,86,068/- u/s. 69 of the Act was not justified as assessment order as well as CIT(A) has not given proper opportunities to file the details before both the authorities. 6. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1623/Ahd/2025 Solace Inn, A.Y. 2020-21 3 that the assessee has not filed details before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has only mentioned the notice issued to the assessee but has not mentioned whether the notices were served to the assessee or not. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) needs to be condoned and hence the same is condoned. Since the assessee has not filed details, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the details and adjudication of the issues on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 17-11-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 17/11/2025 आदेश क\u0006 \u0007\bत ल प अ\u000fे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील\u0012य अ\u0013धकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "