NAVGHAN VAGHABHAI SHIYALIYA ,RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT , RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 519/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost payment, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 13,22,000/- in cash during the Specified Bank Notes (SBN) period but failed to file a return of income. The Assessing Officer treated the deposits as unexplained money and made an assessment under section 144 read with section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 14/07/2026Pronounced: 14/07/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 519/RJT/2026 [ �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Navghan Vaghabhai Shiyaliya ITO Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot 1 Bhidbhanjan Society, Opp Amrut Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Vs. Sagar Apartment, Hari Nagar-6, Near Road, Rajkot-360001 Garden, 150 FT Ring Road, Rajkot Gujarat 360005, Gujarat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ELQPS5103D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 14/07/2026

:: ORDER :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ‘NFAC’], dated 09.04.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act, dated 10.12.2019.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.13,22,000/- during the period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, i.e., the

ITA No. 519/RJT/2026 Navghan Vaghabhai Shiyaliya Specified Bank Notes (SBN) period. The assessee, however, did not file the return of income for the relevant assessment year under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish a true and correct return of income along with the requisite details. Despite the statutory notices, the assessee failed to furnish the return of income or comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 69A of the Act and determined the total income at Rs.10,82,220/- by treating the unexplained cash deposits as unexplained money.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, despite several opportunities of hearing, the assessee failed to appear. Consequently, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte and confirmed the assessment order.

4.

Thereafter, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 650 days. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit was filed, explaining that the delay had occurred due to the negligence and lapse on the part of the tax consultant, who failed to take appropriate steps for filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The Ld. DR strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that the delay is inordinate. It was further contended that the assessee had remained non-compliant even before the learned CIT(A), who granted as many as eight consecutive opportunities of hearing, but the assessee failed to appear. Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Page 2 of 4

ITA No. 519/RJT/2026 Navghan Vaghabhai Shiyaliya 05. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is true that there is a considerable delay of 650 days in filing the present appeal. It is equally true that the assessee had not diligently prosecuted the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the explanation furnished in the affidavit, the settled principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay, subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, the delay of 650 days is condoned on the condition that the assessee shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and furnish proof of such payment before the Assessing Officer within the time prescribed by the Assessing Officer. Since the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte without adjudication on merits, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall examine the issues afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and comply with all notices and requisitions issued by the Assessing Officer. Failure to do so shall entitle the Assessing Officer to proceed in accordance with law.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 14/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT

Page 3 of 4

ITA No. 519/RJT/2026 Navghan Vaghabhai Shiyaliya 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →