BHAVANABEN RAJESHBHAI PATEL ,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1543/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 June 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the assessee an opportunity to present her case before the Assessing Officer. This was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed late by 29 days. The lower authorities had passed ex parte and best judgment orders as the assessee was in Australia and could not represent her case properly. The assessee claimed the investments were from known sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present her case before the AO after ex parte orders were passed by lower authorities due to her absence abroad.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 69,Section 80C,Section 10,Section 115BBE,Section 270A,Section 271AAC,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R, Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/06/2026Pronounced: 29/06/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 08.01.2026 passed

ITA No.1543/Ahd/2026[Bhavanaben Rajeshbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 2 –

under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21.

2.

The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 29 days. A separate application for the condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing of the present appeal is, hereby, condoned.

3.

The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal:

“1. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal passing ex parte order.

2.

Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of ₹ 53,05,000/- made by AO as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

3.

Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of ₹ 1,50,000/-deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act.

4.

Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO disallowing exemption of 13,200/- claimed u/s 10 of the Act.

5.

Levy of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act is unjustified.

6.

Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s u/s 270A, 271AAC and 272A (1)(d) of the Act is unjustified.”

ITA No.1543/Ahd/2026[Bhavanaben Rajeshbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 3 –

4.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A).

4.1 He has further invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is also an ex parte / best judgment order passed u/s 144 of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the assessee has gone to Australia and, hence, could not properly represent her case before the lower authorities. He has further submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits. He, in this respect, has submitted that the amount in question was invested by the assessee out of her known sources of income. It is further submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present her case before the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”).

5.

Considering the rival submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee be given an opportunity to present her case before the Ld.AO. So far as the negligence on the part of the assessee in not properly representing her case before the lower authorities is concerned, the asessee can be burdened with reasonable costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will deposit the aforesaid costs amount within 60 days from the receipt of copy of this order and will produce the proof of such deposit

ITA No.1543/Ahd/2026[Bhavanaben Rajeshbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 4 –

before the Ld.AO. Subject to the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the AO will pass the assessment order afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

6.

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

This Order pronounced on 29/06/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 29/06/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. 5. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →