DAVE GYANESHWAR VASUDEV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO -1 INTL. TAXN., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 126/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 August 2026AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mst. Katiji and Others. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication due to lack of effective representation before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an NRI, filed an appeal against an addition of Rs 25,44,484. There was a significant delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, attributed to the assessee's NRI status and issues with representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication due to lack of proper representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, AR
For Respondent: Shri Prashant Kumar Jain, SR-DR
Hearing: 06.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 126/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dave Gyaneshwar Vasudev The ITO-1, Vs. 1148, Akaseth Kuva Ni Pole, INTL. TAXN Raipur, Ahmedabad-380001, Ahmedabad-380009 Gujarat [PAN : ACSPD3099A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Samir Vora, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Prashant Kumar Jain, SR-DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2026

O R D E R PER SANJAY KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 13, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal:- “The learned CIT(A) have erred in Staining Addition of Rs 2544484/- for Asst. year 2010-11.”

3.

The Assessee before us has submitted facts of the case, as under: “1. Assesse in NRI and Living in USA.

ITA No. 126/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) - 2– 2. Assesse was holding Indian Passport upto 05/09/1999 to 04/08/2009 and He became USA citizen from 20/12/2005 and onwards to 20/12/15 to 20/12/2025. 3. Immovable property at Punit Nagar was purchased on 05/05/2010 for Rs 2000000/- out which payment of Rs 1600000/- was made on 16/03/2010 rest of payment was made on 03/05/2010. Asst year 2011-12 of Rs 400000/- 4. Assessment was reopened u/s 148 for bank Entries of Rs/401120/-dated 29/03/2017.

5.

Return of Income was filed on 29/08/2017 declaring total income NIL.

6.

Cash deposited as per Asst. order 925995/ is wrong actual cash deposited is Rs 695520/- only which is not corrected verified by ITO and CIT(A) and cheque deposited loan from mother, brother and other family members.

7.

Bank statement for loan was filed but same not considered by ITO and CIT without giving opportunity to cross examine brother, Mother and other family members total loan obtained 2070950/- out which 978520/-remains unused. 8. Therefore, addition of Rs 2544484/- is required to be deleted." 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), whereby the learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the present appeal of the Assessee by holding that the addition made by AO to the extent of Rs 25,44,484 is confirmed and addition of Rs 2,26,475 is deleted.

5.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. There was a delay of 2273 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The content of condonation application reads as follows:

“1. Assesse is NRI and Assessed to tax and Income Tax return was filed on 29/08/2017 declaring NIL Return. 2. Asst. order u/s 143(3) was passed on 13/12/2017 total income of Rs 2770959/-

ITA No. 126/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) - 3–

3.

The Appeal order passed by CIT(A) Appeal No CIT(A)/13/23/08/2019. Total Income after CIT(A) order 2544484. on 4. After appeal order Income Tax work was handed over to other person who was living in Delhi to file ITAT Appeal etc. 5. The above person to whom work was given migrated to Africa and file remains unattended upto 24/11/2025. 6. The new Advocate is appointed to work from 21/11/2025. Assesse is living in USA and general power of attorney was given to brother and sister in 1999 Which was useless as none of person work satisfactory level. 7. Therefore, there is considerable delay in filing appeal and the same may be condoned. 8. Assesse through POA reserve its right to Ammend Alter or delete any submission.”

6.

The Ld. AR for the Assessee, in view of the above application for condonation of delay, submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that the delay of 2273 days may kindly be condoned and the matter may be remanded back to the AO for de novo adjudication. It is further submitted that given an opportunity, due compliances will be made and all the details/clarifications/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8.

In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Versus Mst. Katiji and Others [167 ITR 471 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, while examining the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal, observed that: i. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal.

ITA No. 126/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) - 4– ii. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay Is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

iii. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

iv. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

v. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

vi. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

9.

The Assessee in this case is an NRI. Going through the Assessment Order and the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A), it is noticed that there was no effective representation by the Assessee either before ld. CIT(A) or ld. AO. In such circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal in view of the averments made in the condonation application applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji and Others (supra). Also the Assessee was not properly represented before the Revenue Authorities, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication.

ITA No. 126/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) - 5– 10. Resultantly, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the matter is remanded back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The Assessee shall submit all relevant materials and supporting documents before the AO in support of its case and shall comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

11.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced on 20.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY KUMAR) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 20.08.2026 DS, PS

ITA No. 126/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) - 6– आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु�/ Concerned CIT आयकरआयु�(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 4. 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड�फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकरअपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (words processed by the Hon’ble JM on his PC) on 18 .08.2026. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 18 .08.2026 3. Other Member .08.2026 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .08.2026 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .08.2026 5. 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S .2026 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk .2026 7. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk .2026 The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order .2026

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →