The ITAT Ahmedabad did not quash the reassessment in Jigarkumar Champaklal Inamdar v. ITO. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether the order had actually been passed within time after the taxpayer produced screenshots said to show it was missing from the old and new income-tax portals. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, leaving the outcome dependent on that verification.
What the ITAT Ahmedabad directed
The Tribunal told the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the taxpayer’s claim about when the reassessment order was passed. The reported order states: “Having considered the matter, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the claim of passing of the order.” It further says: “In case the Revenue could not prove passing of the order in time, the matter stands at rest.” The parties were given liberty to approach the Tribunal if contrary findings emerged. The reported order
This is a direction to establish a disputed fact, not a final ruling that the reassessment was invalid. The report says the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Why the order’s absence became an issue
The taxpayer submitted a screenshot said to show that the assessment order was not displayed on the old portal as of 2 December 2019, as well as a screenshot dated 2 July 2026 showing it was not displayed on the new portal. Those dates and the claimed absence are described in the reproduced order as the taxpayer’s evidence; they are not independently authenticated in the available reporting. The reported order
#1 Best Overall
A missing portal display raised a question in this case about whether the order had been passed in time. The Tribunal’s direction called for verification of that question; it did not declare the portal record legally conclusive.
Passing, service and portal display are different questions
The dispute calls for care with three distinct procedural questions:
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
- When was the assessment order passed? The Tribunal directed the AO to verify whether it was passed within time.
- Was the order served or communicated? The reported direction does not decide this issue.
- Does the order appear in the portal account? The screenshots were presented as evidence of non-display, but the Tribunal did not establish a general rule that portal visibility determines whether an order was passed or served.
Accordingly, this decision should not be read as holding that an order absent from an online account is automatically void. Its specific direction was to verify the timing claim and establish whether the order had been passed in time.
Case background and matters left undecided
The case is Jigarkumar Champaklal Inamdar v. ITO, ITA No. 2589/AHD/2025, for assessment year 2012–13. The identifiers are corroborated by the official ITAT Ahmedabad cause list; the holding is described in the reported order. That report says the decision was pronounced in open court on 30 September 2026.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The appeal challenged a CIT(A) order dated 26 November 2025 that had dismissed the first appeal as delayed without deciding its merits. The taxpayer disputed the limitation calculation and the handling of an asserted request for condonation. The Tribunal did not finally resolve those grounds in this order. It admitted an additional legal ground challenging the reassessment under sections 143(3) read with 147 because it went to the root of the matter and raised a legal issue arising from the assessment record. The reported order
TaxCorp reports that the underlying reassessment concerned cash deposits totalling ₹24,20,000 during FY 2011–12, which were treated as unexplained cash credit. That is background reported by a secondary source, not an issue decided in the Tribunal’s verification direction. TaxCorp’s case report
Rank #4
The order did not decide the cash-deposit addition on its merits, conclusively quash the reassessment, or determine the result of the AO’s verification. The reported sources also do not establish the exact assessment-completion deadline or how it was calculated.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What a taxpayer can take from this decision
If an assessment order is not visible in a portal account, the fact may be relevant to a dispute about the order, but this ruling does not make non-display conclusive. In this case, the Tribunal required the Revenue to verify whether the order had been passed within time. The evidence described in the report consisted of the taxpayer’s screenshots and claim; the ruling does not set out a general evidentiary checklist or resolve what proof would suffice in other cases.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
