DIYAN MAHENDRAKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 689/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 August 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Non-Resident, failed to file an appeal before the CIT(A) within the stipulated time due to lack of awareness of assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, A.R, Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
Pronounced: 12/08/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The captioned both the appeals relate to the same assessee are against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), both dated 16.01.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since, the

ITA Nos.688 & 689/Ahd/2026 [Diyan Mahendrakumar Patel vs. ACIT] A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 2 –

facts and issues involved in both the appeals are common and identical, hence, the captioned appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 688/Ahd/2026 for AY 2017-18 is taken as a lead case for the purpose of narration of facts.

ITA No.688/Ahd/2026

3.

The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), Ahmedabad-13 has grossly erred in law and in facts in rejecting the appeal without not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and thereby failed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide and sufficient reasons, as stated in the application for condonation filed before him, and thus deserved to be condoned in the interest of natural justice. The appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and he may please be directed to adjudicate the same on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), Ahmedabad-13 has erred in law and in facts in not adjudicating the following grounds raised before him on merits: i) The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and in facts in not affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and the impugned order is bad in law as it violates the principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. ii) The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in not providing the proper information about the alleged investment in immovable property in the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) as also in the order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and thus, the assessment made is prayed to be quashed.

ITA Nos.688 & 689/Ahd/2026 [Diyan Mahendrakumar Patel vs. ACIT] A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 3 –

iii) The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in making an addition of Rs. 20,88,701/-on the basis of information flagged on Insight portal as well as total payment made for purchase of immovable property reflected in the Form No. 26AS and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act for the year under consideration. The Ld. A.O. has made the addition for want of source of investment made by the appellant. The addition of Rs.20,88,701/- is being made by the Ld. A.O. is in complete disregard to the available facts and therefore, the appellant prays that the addition should be deleted. iv) The Ld. AO has further erred in law and in facts in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act and the same may please be directed to be dropped. The Ld. CIT(A) may please be directed to adjudicate the above grounds on merits by condoning the delay in filing the appeal in time. 3. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, substitute, or withdraw any ground of appeal hereinabove contained.” 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order against the assessee. It has been further submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident, residing in United Kingdom since long, therefore, was not aware of the assessment proceedings going on and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) occurred. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismiss the appeal of the assessee holding the same as barred by limitation. Further, the assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional evidences. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in this respect, submitted that the assessee could not furnish the requisite details before the

ITA Nos.688 & 689/Ahd/2026 [Diyan Mahendrakumar Patel vs. ACIT] A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 4 – Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) due to the aforesaid reasons. He has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and also submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO.

5.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

6.

Considering the above submissions of the Ld. AR and also after hearing the Ld. DR, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld.AO. So far as the negligence on the part of the assessee in not properly representing his case before the lower authorities is concerned, the asessee is burdened with reasonable costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will deposit the aforesaid cost amount within 60 days from the receipt of copy of this order and will produce the proof of such deposit before the Ld.AO. Subject to the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. The AO will pass the assessment order afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee to furnish the requisite details and evidences.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA Nos.688 & 689/Ahd/2026 [Diyan Mahendrakumar Patel vs. ACIT] A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 5 –

ITA No.689/Ahd/2026

8.

Since the facts and issues involved in above captioned appeal is identical, hence, our finding given above for A.Y.2017-18 will mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to file of the AO for, denovo assessment, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- as costs in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is also treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the combined result, both appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced on 12/08/2026 under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 12/08/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. 5. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, 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

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →