UDAYBHAI DEVSHIBHAI SOLANKI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1577/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Udaybhai Devshibhai Solanki against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer. The primary contention in the appeal was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent additions made under Section 69 of the Act, which were claimed to be unexplained investments amounting to Rs. 17,60,511. The appellant argued that the assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction, and crucially, without providing necessary documents or an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal noted the absence of the appellant's counsel at the CIT(A) level due to health issues and decided to remand the case back for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778461 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH CHHAJED
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 148; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1577/Ahd/2025 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Udaybhai Devshibhai Solanki 25, Saurashtra Society, Ellis Bridge, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380006 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad Öथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABTPS0191E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, AR Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 29/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 08/10/2025 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 22.07.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1577/Ahd/2025 [Udaybhai Devshibhai Solanki vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 2 – 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. as the Notice issued U/S 148 of the Act is void, illegal & without jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. as the addition made without providing any documents/statements on which reliance has been placed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. as opportunity of cross-examination has not been provided. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made U/S 69 of the Act by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 17,60,511/- as unexplained investment. 6. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 3. At the outset itself, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is ex parte. He admitted before us that he was the Counsel for the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) also and he stated that due to his illness, being admitted in the Hospital for a heart surgery, he was unable to attend the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). He pleaded, therefore, that the matter be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-consideration. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1577/Ahd/2025 [Udaybhai Devshibhai Solanki vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 3 – 4. Considering the admission made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us, we consider it fit to restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) directing him to give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the appellate order. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 08/10/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 08/10/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ Ĥितिलǒप अĒेǒषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ǒवभागीय Ĥितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "