SHIRISHKUMAR JAYANTILAL PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE I.TO. WARD-4, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1976/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. 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's appeal was filed late and the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders. The assessee, an agriculturist, claimed to be unaware of tax procedures and unable to represent his case properly.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing and whether the addition made under Section 69A was justified without proper representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 14/07/2026Pronounced: 30/07/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 03.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ITA No.1976/Ahd/2026 [Shirishkumar Jayantilal Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 –

referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal:

“1. That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC and AO has grievously erred in not providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and in deciding the appeal vide ex-parte order.

2.

That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC and AO has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,01,16,500/- made u/s. 69A of the Act in respect of total credits in appellant’s bank account. “

3.

The appeal is barred by limitation by 691 days. A separate affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed, by the assessee, wherein assessee has stated that he is an agriculturist and is not conversant with Income Tax Law, nor he is conversant with computer operation. He came to know about the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 in the month of April 2026, when the Income Tax Officials contacted him for recovery of demand. Thereafter the present appeal was filed by him.

4.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) to submit that the same is the ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No.1976/Ahd/2026 [Shirishkumar Jayantilal Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 –

5.

He has further invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is also an ex parte / best judgment order passed u/s 144 of the Act.

5.1 The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and the impugned addition has been made by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) by treating agriculture income of the assessee as ‘income from undisclosed sources’. Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee was not aware of the complexities of Income Tax Procedures and he could not make proper representation before the lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further 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 Ld. Assessing Officer.

6.

Considering the rival submissions, in our view, 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 can be burdened with reasonable costs of Rs.10000/- 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

ITA No.1976/Ahd/2026 [Shirishkumar Jayantilal Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 4 –

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.

7.

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

This Order is pronounced on 30/07/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 30/07/2026 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. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →