THE KARA DUDH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

ITA 2414/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves The Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd., the appellant, contesting an appellate order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2019-20. The appellant challenged the ex-parte order which confirmed additions to their income, including an estimation of profits and income from other sources, citing their inability to respond due to genuine constraints. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not given a real and meaningful opportunity of hearing, which led to the decision to set aside the previous order and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829634 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ahmedabad
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M. K. PATEL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2414/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Kara Kanjipani Jambughoda Panchmahal – 389 390 [PAN: AABAT 7019 G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Godhra Godhra – 389 001 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Respondent by: -None- Date of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order ex-parte, without ensuring that a real and meaningful opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant, especially considering the peculiar circumstances and genuine limitations faced by the appellant in effectively participating in the proceedings. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 79,61,778/- being made as estimation Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2414/Ahd/2025 The Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO AY : 2019-20 2 of Profits by applying flat rate of 8% to the total sales of the appellant without considering the appellant's inability to respond to the hearing notices due to genuine constraints. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 746,348/- on account of Income from other Sources as offered in the return of Income without considering the appellant's inability to respond to the hearing notices due to genuine constraints. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ex-parte in violation of the mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal through a reasoned order on each ground of appeal, irrespective of the appellant's absence or non-compliance. 4,0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that non-appearance of the appellant does not empower the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss or decide appeal on merits without real hearing. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A, 271A and 2718 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Delay condoned. 4. On perusal of the records, it is observed that despite of repeated notices, the assessee did not furnish any submission, information or documents or requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance will be made, all necessary Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2414/Ahd/2025 The Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO AY : 2019-20 3 details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Ld.CIT(A) and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounc The order is pronounc The order is pronounc The order is pronounced in the open Court on ed in the open Court on ed in the open Court on ed in the open Court on 16 16 16 16/01/2026 /01/2026 /01/2026 /01/2026 S S S Sd/ d/ d/ d/- - - - S S S Sd/ d/ d/ d/- - - - ( ( ( (SUCHITRA SUCHITRA SUCHITRA SUCHITRA KAMBLE KAMBLE KAMBLE KAMBLE) ) ) ) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE VICE VICE VICE- - - -PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 16/01/2026 tc nair आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC). Delhi 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 15.01.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 15.01.2026 3. Other Member 17.11.2025 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 16.1.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 16.1.2026 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 "