HARMANBHAI GORDHANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 30.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

ITA No.215/Ahd/2026 Harmanbhai Gordhanbhai Patel - 2 – 2. There is a delay of 577 days in the filing of the present appeal. The assessee has attributed the delay for the reason that he was an agriculturalist, deriving income from agricultural activities carried out on agricultural land owned by him and his family. That he had gone to the United States of America on 01.12.2018 and returned to India only on 10.07.2025, and in the meanwhile his son, Hansal Patel ,was managing and looking after all his affairs, including agricultural operations, and it was his son’s mobile number and e-mail address which was provided in the Income Tax Portal, and also in Form No.35 for the purpose of preferring an appeal to Ld. CIT(A). That during assessment proceedings, the assessee had undergone a heart surgery in USA, and due to ill health he was not in India, and proper details could not be filed before AO. That all notices for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) were delivered to his son, and due to inadvertence, he could not check the email, and could not file the submissions during the appellate proceedings also. That only, when his Chartered Accountant informed him of the passing of the Ld. CIT(A) order, that he became aware of it, and upon his advice, the appeal has been preferred with a delay of 577 days. 3. The above facts were stated in a duly sworn affidavit by the assessee, before us. He further, stated that, he was now in a possession to corroborate the source of cash deposited in his bank account, which had been added to his income by the AO amounting to Rs.60,99,000/-. 4. Ld. DR however, objected to the condonation of delay, stating that the delay was substantial and no reasonable cause had been adduced for condoning the delay. 5. Considering the above, we are of the view, that the assessee has adduced sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the present

ITA No.215/Ahd/2026 Harmanbhai Gordhanbhai Patel - 3 – appeal and further to meet the ends of justice, the delay of 577 days in filing the present appeal needs to be condoned, since, the assessee would be gravely prejudiced, if the delay is not condoned as, it would result in huge additions made to its income to the tune of Rs.60,99,000/-, on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, and Rs.19,26,000/-, on protective basis u/s 69A of the Act, being confirmed without hearing the assessee at all. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the present appeal before us, of 577 days is condoned. 6. Taking up the appeal for hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal filed in absence of any written submissions uploaded by the appellant in response to the notices issued ignoring the submissions made before AO. 2. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 60,99,000/- by AO u/s 69A r w s 115BBE of the Act of amount deposited by the appellant in the banks during demonetization period. 3. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts confirming addition without appreciating reply submitted to SCN issued by AO giving full explanation regarding cash deposited in the bank. 4. Ld. CIT (A) (NBAC) erred in law and on facts confirming addition made by AO of Rs. 30,00,000/- repayment of the loan given earlier as unexplained cash credit ignoring confirmation & bank passbook of the payers totally against the principles of Natural Justice. 5. Ld. CIT (A) (NBFC) erred in law and on facts confirming addition made by AO of Rs. 19, 26, 000/- on the protective basis u/s 69A of the Act. 6. Levy of interest u/s 234B/234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC of the Act is unjustified.

ITA No.215/Ahd/2026 Harmanbhai Gordhanbhai Patel - 4 – 8. It is humbly prayed to set aside the appeal to the file of CIT (A) to consider evidence & submissions for adjudicating the issues on merits. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 7. Brief facts relating to the case are, that in the ex parte assessment order passed in the case of the assessee, the cash deposited in the Bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.60,99,000/- was added to his income on account of the source of same, remained unexplained. 8. Moreover, the amount of cash deposited in the bank account of the son amounting to Rs.19,26,000/- was also added on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee, since the claimed the entire money to have been generated from agricultural activities carried out by him. 9. Both of these additions on substantive and protective basis, were confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), again in an ex parte order passed. 10. Since, the assessee has not been heard at any stage, and sufficient reasons have been adduced by the assessee before us, as above, for not appearing both during assessment and appellate proceedings, in the interest of justice, therefore, we consider it fit to restore the issue back to the file of the AO, to decide the issue afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 11. However, a cost of Rs.5,000/- is being imposed for the resources of the Revenue being required to be deployed again for assessment of the income of the assessee for no fault of the Revenue. The assessee is directed to deposit the cost in the

ITA No.215/Ahd/2026 Harmanbhai Gordhanbhai Patel - 5 – Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The Ld. AO is directed to take up the matter only after the assessee furnishes evidence of deposit of impugned cost. 12. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 15.07.2026

Sd/- sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 15/07/2026 Mittali आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad