SAJIDBHAI YAKUBBHAI VAHORA,MOTA MADRESA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, ANAND., S.P.COMPLEX

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1178/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 July 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal found that the actual cash deposits were Rs. 7,50,000/- and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file the original return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case based on information about cash deposits of Rs. 11,84,000/-. The AO added the entire amount as unexplained income, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on delay without considering the merits, and whether the addition under Section 68 was justified based on the bank statement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, AR
For Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, SR-DR
Hearing: 25.06.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

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 03.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

There was delay of 308 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation application explaining the reason for delay. It has been submitted that the residential address of the assessee was changed

ITA No. 1178/Ahd/2026 Sajidbhai Yakubbhai Vahora Vs ITO, AY- 2013-14 2 in the month of November, 2015 and as a result, the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) remained unattended and his final order was also not received at the given address. Further, that the assessee was not conversant with checking the e-mail account and the notices and order received on e-mail account were also missed. As a result, there was delay of 308 days in filing of this appeal. 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 did not file his original return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. The AO had received an information regarding cash deposits of Rs.11,84,000/- in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 08.04.2019. In the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits. However, the AO was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and the entire cash deposit of Rs. 11,84,000/- was held as unexplained and added to income. The assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.09.2021 at total income of Rs. 11,84,000/-.

3.

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

4.

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

ITA No. 1178/Ahd/2026 Sajidbhai Yakubbhai Vahora Vs ITO, AY- 2013-14 3

1.

The learned CTT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal vide order dated 03.03.2025. The appellant was prevented by justifiable and reasonable caвов from complying with the notices issued by the Lal. CITTA). It is therefore prayed that the non-compliance may kindly be condoned and the appeal be adjudicated on merits. 2. The learned AO grossly erred in making addition under section 68 of the Act, holding Bank Account statement of the appellant as "books of an assessee". The bank statement not being "books", which is foundational requirement for making addition under deeming provisions of Section 68, the addition made on this premise is untenable and invalid in eyes of law. It be so held now. 3. The learned AO grossly erred by not affording adequate time to submit reply and supporting evidences. The Show-cause-notice in form of "Druft Assessinant Order was issued in case of assessee dated 26.09.2021 requiring him to submit explanation and details on the immediate next day Le. on 27.09.2021. 4. The said action by learned AO is contrary to the provisions of natural justice and the consequent addition made vide Assessment order passed dated 28.09.2021 is therefore untenable and bad-at-law. 5. The learned AO grossly erred in making addition under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.11,84,000/-. The addition is unwarranted in facts and circumstances of the case and please be deleted. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add/alter or modify any of the above grounds of appeal.

5.

Ms. Arti N Shah, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and he did not adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. She, 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).

6.

Per Contra, Smt. Mamta Singh, the Ld. SR-DR had no objection if the matter was set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.

7.

We have considered the request of the assessee. The AO had treated the entire cash deposit of Rs. 11,84,000/- as unexplained. Before

ITA No. 1178/Ahd/2026 Sajidbhai Yakubbhai Vahora Vs ITO, AY- 2013-14 4 the AO, the assessee had submitted that the cash deposits made in the bank accounts were to the extent of Rs. 7,50,000/- only. From the copy of bank statement, brought on record in the paper-book by the assessee, it is found that the cash deposits in the bank accounts made on three occasions totalled to Rs.7,50,000/- only. In the assessment order, the AO did not controvert this submission of the assessee, before making addition of Rs.11,84,000/-. Under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds taken by the assessee on merits rather than dismissing the appeal on ground of delay. It transpires that the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow any opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the appeal due to delay in filing of appeal. It has been held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vareli Textile Industries v. CIT [284 ITR 238 (Guj.)] that the meritorious case should not be thrown out on the ground of limitation. Considering the merit of the case as discussed above, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing of appeal before him and, thereafter, adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merits.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 08/07/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 08th July, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy)

ITA No. 1178/Ahd/2026 Sajidbhai Yakubbhai Vahora Vs ITO, AY- 2013-14 5

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 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 उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार 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 →