Naimishbhai Kantibhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad bench, in the case of Naimishbhai Kantibhai Patel versus the Income Tax Officer (ITO), has remanded a reassessment dispute back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh review. The decision, pronounced on March 20, 2025, allows the assessee a new opportunity to present their case, albeit with a cost imposed for past non-compliance.
The appeal by Naimishbhai Kantibhai Patel challenged an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated October 21, 2024, concerning the Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee’s grounds of appeal included questioning the validity of the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. A key contention was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on technical grounds, specifically a delay of 234 days in filing, which the assessee attributed to the physical non-service of the AO’s order and unfamiliarity with email communication. Furthermore, the assessee disputed the addition made under Section 69C, alleging bogus purchases, stating that cogent third-party evidence and bank channel payments were ignored.
During the ITAT proceedings, it was noted that the assessee had repeatedly failed to comply with hearing notices and had also delayed filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The ITAT observed that the assessee had not even complied with the Assessing Officer’s notices previously. Despite this, the assessee’s counsel requested an opportunity to provide all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations to the revenue authorities. In the interest of justice, the ITAT decided to remand the matter for a de-novo assessment. However, to address the non-compliance, a cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited into the “Prime Minister Relief Fund.” The receipt of this deposit must be submitted to the Joint Assessing Officer before any order giving effect to the ITAT’s decision is passed. The assessee is now required to comply with all future notices from the Assessing Officer without requesting unnecessary adjournments. The appeal has been allowed for statistical purposes, signifying that the case is being sent back for re-adjudication based on the merits of the evidence.
