SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
AS, PT
ADOR CERAMIC PVT. LTD. YOGESHKUMAR M ADROJA – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR-2 – Respondent



Petitioner Advocates:DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) ,Respondent Advocate: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 157 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 183 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 184 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 158 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 169 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 170 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 171 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 172 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 173 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 175 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 176 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 177 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 178 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 210 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 212 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 215 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 218 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 219 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 220 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 221 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 222 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 223 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 224 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 226 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 227 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 228 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 229 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 230 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 231 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 232 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 234 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 235 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 236 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 238 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 242 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 243 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 271 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 273 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 275 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 276 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 278 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 382 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 383 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 384 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 385 of 2025 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 386 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

ADOR CERAMIC PVT. LTD. YOGESHKUMAR M ADROJA Versus DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR-2 ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RK PATEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DARSHAN R PATEL(8486)

for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 21/11/2025 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. ADMIT. Learned senior standing counsel Mr.Varun Patel waives service of notice of admission for respondent.

2. Since the common substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeals, the same are decided by this common judgment and order. The Tax Appeal No.157 of 2025 is taken up as a lead matter.

3. The appellants have prepared the following substantial questions of law as contemplated under Section

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :

“(1) Whether the ITAT has substantially erred in rendering a vitiated finding on facts and law by confirming the additions based on non-granting of an opportunity of cross- examination to the Appellant which results the assessment itself into nullity?

(2) Whether on facts the Tribunal has substantially erred in law in confirming the additions at 13% on estimate basis on account of unaccounted sales in absence of any transactions with Hiren K Kalariya?

(3) Whether on facts the ITAT has committed a serious error of law in confirming the partial additions on estimate basis on rejection of books of accounts based on statement of Shri Hiren Kalariya without the Appellant’s name being reflected in the seized material?

(4) Whether the ITAT has substantially erred in facts and law in granting jurisdiction u/s 153C when there is an inordinate delay and pre conditions of the statutory provisions in issuing a notice under Section 153C are not satisfied?”

4. We have substantially heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties so far as the preliminary and core substantial question of law as mentioned in paragraph No.1, which pertains to non-g

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top