KHANJAN PRADIPKUMAR JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos. 124&125/Ahd/2026 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Khanjan Pradipkumar Joshi ITO (Individual), बनाम/ Ward-1(3)(2), v/s. 20/D, Noopur, Sahyog Vadodara Tenament, New Sama Road, Vadodara-390024 �थायी लेखा सं./PAN:AJIPJ9454C (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�� यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Kinjal Shah, CA Revenue by : Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/07/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present captioned appeals have been preferred by the same assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 15/12/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

ITA No.124&125/Ahd/2026 Khanjan Pradipkumar Joshi (Individual) vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 2 of the act for non-compliance of the notices issued by the AO. Firstly, we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 124/Ahd/2026.

“On Legality of the Order 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and facts in not condoning delay of 68 days in filling appeal before him and dismissing the appeal in limine, without appreciating the genuine and Bonafide reasons for delay. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay was caused due to technical glitches and non-functioning of Income Tax e-filling portal due to migration from old portal to new portal during the same time, for which assessee has raised a grievance on Income tax portal, which was beyond the control of assessee, and therefore constitutes a reasonable and sufficient cause. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the affidavit filed by the assessee, clearly explaining the reasons for delay and failed to follow the settled legal principles that procedural delay should be liberally condoned for the sake of natural justice. 4. The CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in Fact in confirming the Asst. Order passed u/s.!43(3)/144 which is bad in law since the Assessing Officer has not rejected books of Account and sec.145(3) was not invoked when he resorted to Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144. It is therefore submitted that the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144 is not maintainable. 5. The CIT(A) had asked Assessing Officer for Remand Report a copy of which and a chance to Rebut was not given to Appellant and CIT(A) wholly & fully relied on Remand Report of Assessing Officer for confirming all additions made resulting into great injustice and irreparable hardship and loss to your Appellant. It is therefore submitted that order of CIT(A) based on Remand Report of Assessing Officer be held as passed against principle of equity and natural justice and be dismissed. On Merits 1. Without Prejudice the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in fact in not admitting evidences and submission that the deposits made of Rs. 10,75,000/- in the Pragati Sahakari Bank was duly credited in the books of account and hence, the addition amounts to duplication of the same amount which is against principle of fair play. Tax Effect Rs. 1,51,925

ITA No.124&125/Ahd/2026 Khanjan Pradipkumar Joshi (Individual) vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 3 2. Without Prejudice it is submitted that if any addition is required under Law, then the addition to be restricted at 2% of net profit of the Appellant as held by various Honl. Courts and binding judgement of Hon. Gujarat High Court since sec 69A does not apply as per provisions of Law & Facts of the case. Total Tax Effect Rs.1,51,925 It is therefore submitted that reliefs claimed above be allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer be modified accordingly. Your Appellant reserves right to add, alter, amend to withdraw any or all Ground of Appeal.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the assessee during the relevant period was under mental stress as he was undergoing through divorce proceedings with his wife, certain medical reasons have also been cited for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), similar reasons have been given for not properly representing the case before the AO. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that even the Ld. CIT(A) has also not admitted the additional evidence which was very much necessary for just and proper decision of the case. He has submitted that the assessee has fair case on merits.

ITA No.124&125/Ahd/2026 Khanjan Pradipkumar Joshi (Individual) vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 4 assessment afresh, however, subject to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by the assessee in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will furnish the proof of such deposit before the AO and thereafter, the AO will pass the assessment order afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No. 125/Ahd/2026

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding the penalty of Rs. 20,000/-levied under Section 272A(1)(d) for alleged non-compliance with the notices dated 14.06.2019 and 05.09.2019, without appreciating the fact that the appellant had never received the said notices on his registered email ID. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, in absence of service/receipt of any notices, the appellant was not aware of any proceedings initiated by Income Tax Department for the assessment year under consideration, and therefore the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Without prejudice the Ld. CIT(A) has failed in not considering that the alleged non-compliance was due to reasonable and sufficient cause and was neither wilful nor intentional on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(J) deserves to be deleted in view of section 273B of the Act. 4. The penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) is excessive and arbitrary, particularly in light of the appellant's full compliance with other statutory notices and submissions during the appellate proceedings. The penalty ought to be quashed in the interest of justice.” 6. As we discussed above, the assesse has duly explained the reasons for his inability to comply with the notices issued by the AO. Considering the submissions of the assessee, the impugned penalty

ITA No.124&125/Ahd/2026 Khanjan Pradipkumar Joshi (Individual) vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 5 levied by the AO is ordered to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06 /07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Prasad Sinha) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member

अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 06/07/2025 Tanmay, Sr. P.S. TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with the file)) : 03.07 2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the : 03.07.2026 Dictating Member. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating : Member for pronouncement. 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the : 06.07.2026 Sr.P.S./P.S. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 06.07.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar : for signature on the order. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order :