APHSA IMRANBHAI KERUWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 550/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 August 2026AY 2019-208 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer, and restored the issue for de novo adjudication. The penalty orders were also set aside, with liberty to the AO to initiate fresh proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 611-day delay. The assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 147 r.w.s 144 and 144B of the IT Act due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The assessee claimed ignorance of proceedings and sought condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte assessment and penalty orders should be set aside on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD DR. B.R.R. KUMAR VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.548, 549 and 550/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Aphsa Imranbhai Keruwala 2833, RupaLavar Ni Pole, Near Vasant Rajab Police Chowki, Jamalpur, Ahmedabad-380001, Gujarat [PAN:AYIPK6071D] …………. Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer , Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad AaykarBhavan (Vejalpur), Nr. Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road Ahmedabad-380015, Gujarat …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Paras F Jain Respondent/Department : Shri VeerbadramVislavath, Sr. DR Date Conclusion of hearing : 02.07.2026 Pronouncement of order : 07.08.2026

O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. This is a batch of three appeals preferred by the same Assessee involving identical issues. Therefore the same were heard together and are being disposed by way of common order.

ITA No.548/AHD/2026 2. We would first take up ITA No.548/AHD/2026 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020 preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 21/01/2026, passed by CIT(A) whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 29/01/2024, passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 read with

ITA No.548, 549 & 550/AHD/2026 Assessment Year 2019-2020 Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] as barred by limitation.

3.

The grounds raised by the Assessee read as under: 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay in filling appeal as mentioned in form 35 of 611 days holding the same to be unjustified without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits in as much as that he has no power to dismiss the appeal in limine without properly appreciating for petition of condonation of delay mentioned at Sr. No. 15 of the appeal memo. 3. On the facts of the assessee the additions of Rs. 28,59,970/- made by the A.O. as per assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 ought not to have been upheld by the CIT(A) in as much as that the impugned additions are fully explainable. 4. On the facts of the assessee no interest u/s. 234-B, 234-C and 234-D without specifying ought not to have been levied.”

4.

Brief facts of the case are that the case of the Assessee was reopened on the basis of information that Assessee had sold securities and had also purchased bonds/debentures during the relevant previous year. The Assessment Order records that the Assessee had not filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The assessment was framed upon the Assessee under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the Act since during the assessment proceedings the Assessee failed to respond to the notices issued. In absence of any explanation/submission from the Assessee, the Assessing Officer made additions aggregating to INR.28,59,970/-. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(A) which was filed after a delay of 611 days. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised on merits. 5. Before us Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessment Order was passed ex-parte and

ITA No.548, 549 & 550/AHD/2026 Assessment Year 2019-2020 Learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation without adjudicating the additions on merits. He further submitted that great prejudice would be caused to Assessee in case the impugned order is not set-aside. The Learned Authorised Representative prayed that the delay be condoned and appeal be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer of adjudication on merits. 6. The Learned Authorised Representative placed reliance upon the affidavit sworn on 17/04/2026 wherein it was stated as under:

“I under signed APHSA IMRANBHAI KERUWALA assessed vide PAN No. AYIPK 6071 D, aged about 42 years residing at 2833, RupaLavarni Pole, Near Vasant Rajab Police Chowki, Jamalpur, Ahmedabad- 380001 execute this Affidavit explaining reasons for not filing appeal in time before CIT(A). (1): That I have filed appeal before CIT(A) on 31/10/2025 against assessment order passed u/s. 147 on 29/01/2024 assessing ex parte income at Rs. 28,59,970/- (2): That for delaying in filing appeal in the appeal memo before CIT(A) it was explained that I came to know of ex-parte order dated 29/01/2024 only when notice dated 25/09/2025 for recovery was issued and served by the A.O. and as advised I immediately took steps to file filed appeal before Hon'ble ITAT on 26/02/2026. (3): That on inquiry with the person to whom work was assigned for accounts and taxation it was found that he did not attend to the notices and also did not inform me regarding the same resulting in to ex-party order and penalty orders without any negligence on my part. (4): That I am educated up to 9'th standard only and being house wife is not aware of income tax proceedings, the un-intended delay has occurred without any fault and mala fide intention on my part.

ITA No.548, 549 & 550/AHD/2026 Assessment Year 2019-2020 (5): That the additions made are fully explainable and non condo nation of delay by the learned CIT(A) without deciding on merit has caused hardship as demand has been raised for income as well as for penalties levied. (6): That as the appeal has been dismissed in limine, I earnestly, for the sake of justice pray for condonation of delay and restoration of appeal to A.O. to enable me to furnish all the documents before him and for this act of kindness I shall remain grateful for ever. (7): That what is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and above facts are solemnly affirmed on oath.” 7. The Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand placed reliance on the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A). He submitted that the Assessee was negligent in pursuing the remedies and the Assessee should not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. 8. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 9. 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. 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.

ITA No.548, 549 & 550/AHD/2026 Assessment Year 2019-2020 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. 10. The record shows that the Assessee did not file return of income for the relevant assessment year and that there was no effective representation made on behalf of the Assessee before the Assessing Officer and the Learned CIT(A). We note that the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer summarily wherein the entire amounts of sale of securities and purchase of bonds/debentures has been added. In the affidavit filed along with application seeking condonation of delay it has been stated that the Assessee is a housewife and was not aware of the income tax proceedings. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Katiji & Others (supra) we are of the view that the interests of justice would be served, in case the addition made by the Assessing Officer is set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of the Assessing

ITA No.548, 549 & 550/AHD/2026 Assessment Year 2019-2020 Officer for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, we overturn the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) condoning the delay of 651 days in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A); set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer and restore the issue back to the file of the Learned Assessing Officer with the directions to adjudicate the issue afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, Ground No. 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed, Ground No. 3 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and Ground No. 4 is dismissed as being consequential in nature. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated is partly allowed. ITA No.549/AHD/2026 & ITA No.550/AHD/2026 12. We would next take up ITA No.549/AHD/2026 and ITA No.550/AHD/2026 pertaining to Assessment Years 2019-2020 preferred by the Assessee against the Orders dated 21/01/2026, passed by CIT(A) whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals against the Penalty Order, dated 26/06/2024, passed under Section 270A of the Act and Penalty Order, dated 26/06/2024, passed under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act, respectively, holding the same to be barred by limitation. 13. During the hearing both sides had agreed that facts and circumstances leading to delay in filing present appeals before Learned CIT(A) are identical to those prevailing while filing quantum appeal before the Learned CIT(A). Therefore, the decision rendered in ITA No.548/AHD/2026, hereinabove shall apply mutatis mutandis to present appeals also. 14. Accordingly, we overturn the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) condoning the delay in filing the appeals before the Learned CIT(A). Since we have restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer, we set aside penalty levied under Section 270A and 271AAC. The Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings as per law while passing assessment order in the

ITA No.548, 549 & 550/AHD/2026 Assessment Year 2019-2020 quantum proceedings as per directions given by us while adjudicating ITA No.548/AHD/2026. Thus, the grounds raised in both the appeals and the appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 15. In the result, both the appeals are treated is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In conclusion ITA No.548/AHD/2026 is partly allowed while ITA No.549/AHD/2026 and ITA No.550/AHD/2026 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced on 07.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. B.R.R. Kumar) (Rahul Chaudhary) Vice President Judicial Member

िदनांक Dated :07.08.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad; True Copy H.C. PS

ITA No.548, 549 & 550/AHD/2026 Assessment Year 2019-2020 आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु�/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड�फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →