VIJAYKUMAR BALVANTRAI DESAI,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-5, NAVSARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1169/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 July 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee being a senior citizen and unaware of online procedures, with notices being sent to an incorrect email. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee for compliance and to re-decide the grounds on merits, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to information about receiving Rs. 70,00,000/- in cash from the sale of agricultural land. The buyer denied any cash payment, and the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash to the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment and the addition of unexplained cash were valid, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adequate opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, SR-DR
Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 15.07.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 22.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

There was delay of 220 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation application explaining the reason of delay. It has been submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and he was unaware about online filing procedure. He explained that the e-mail id mentioned

ITA No.1169/Srt/2025 Vijaykumar Balvantrai Desai Vs. ITO, AY- 2014-15 2 in form No. 35 was pmd53240@gmail.com. However, the Ld. CIT(A) had sent the notices as well as the order on a different e-mail id i.e. nrupawala39@gmail.com. It has been submitted that the delay was for the reason that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not received by the assessee in time. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 23.02.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 1,69,890/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received that the assessee has received cash of Rs. 70,00,000/- on sale of agricultural land as a co-owner. The ADIT(Investigation), Navsari had made inquiry from the buyers who had denied having made any cash payment to the assessee. Accordingly, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 22.07.2022. Before the AO, no compliance was made by the assessee and the source of cash of Rs. 70,00,000/- was not explained. The assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 29.05.2023 at total income of Rs. 71,69,890/-, wherein an addition of Rs.70,00,000/- was made in respect of unexplained cash.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Th

ITA No.1169/Srt/2025 Vijaykumar Balvantrai Desai Vs. ITO, AY- 2014-15 3

5.

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the act and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject. the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.70,00,000/- account of alleged variation in respect of credit treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject the notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Ao is an invali Notice and the assessment order passed thereafter is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad-in-law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6.

Shri P M Jagasheth, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted at the outset that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, he had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. He, therefore, requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity of being heard by setting aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

7.

Per Contra, Shri Ajay Uke, the Ld. SR-DR, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, he had no objection if the matter was set aside for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.

ITA No.1169/Srt/2025 Vijaykumar Balvantrai Desai Vs. ITO, AY- 2014-15 4 8. We have considered the submissions of the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the application of the assessee primarily on account of non-compliance before him. Further, it is also noticed that the assessee remained non-compliant during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well. The assessee has not explained the reason for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited to Prime Minister National Relief Fund, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow one more opportunity to the assessee to make compliance and thereafter re-decide the grounds taken by the assesse on merits. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and produce the evidences in support of the grounds as taken. The Ld. CIT(A) may call for a remand report of the AO on the additional evidences filed before him and thereafter adjudicate the grounds of the assessee on merit.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 15/07/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 15th July, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy) आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत

ITA No.1169/Srt/2025 Vijaykumar Balvantrai Desai Vs. ITO, AY- 2014-15 5 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →