PRAVEEN KUMAR SHUKLA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 113/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 April 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and admitted the additional evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay without condonation. The assessee also sought to admit additional evidence which was not considered by the lower authorities. The assessee argued that the delay was due to a bonafide cause and the dismissal violated principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without condonation and without considering the merits, and whether additional evidence should be admitted for proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, AR
For Respondent: Shri Saresa Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.04.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without condoning the delay, without appreciating the fact that the delay occurred due to reasonable and bonafide cause and without affording proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant.

ITA No. 113/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that dismissal of appeal without adjudication on merits is contrary to the settled principles of natural justice, when substantial issues relating to additions were raised before him. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, resulting in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the reasons for seeking condonation of delay which arose due to an inadvertent error on the part of the previous consultant. The appellant was under bona fide belief that the supporting details and documentary evidences from the previous consultant would be furnished subsequently along with a detailed written submission prior to the hearing and therefore the same were not included at the time of filing Form 35. However, without granting effective opportunity and without calling for further explanation, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on technical grounds, thereby denying adjudication on merits. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO had grossly erred in passing the reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act despite the fact that all notices issued during the course of reassessment proceedings were duly complied with by the appellant. The Ld. AO completely disregarded the submissions and evidences placed on record and proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte, thereby rendering the reassessment order bad in law as well as on facts. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B without examining the merits of additions, thereby depriving the appellant's statutory right of first appellate redressal. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appellant's claim for indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 24,07,526/- without granting proper opportunity of being heard and without appreciating the documentary evidences placed on record including the construction agreement furnished by the appellant in support of such claim. The Ld. CIT(A) has thus failed to adjudicate the ground on merits, resulting in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appellant's legitimate claims for deductions under Chapter VI-A (i.c., u/s 80C, 80D and 80GG) as well as the statutory standard deduction u/s 16(ia) from salary, without affording adequate opportunity of being

ITA No. 113/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– heard and without appreciating that the said claims were genuine and allowable under the provisions of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and the dismissal of the appeal in such manner is in clear breach of the principles of natural justice. 8. That the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to admit and consider the additional evidences sought to be filed under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from producing the same before the lower authorities owing to non-availability of such documents at the relevant time, the same being very old records. The additional evidences have a direct and material bearing on the merits of the case and are necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved. 9. That the said additional evidence is relevant and material for the proper adjudication of the issues involved in the appeal and its admission is necessary for rendering substantial justice. That the non- production of such evidence earlier was neither deliberate nor due to any negligence on the part of the appellant, but solely because the documents could not be traced or arranged in time owing to their old nature and unavailability, therefore, prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to exercise its discretionary powers under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and admit the said additional evidence in the interest of justice. 10. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set aside the impugned order to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to accord one more effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant, in the interest of natural justice. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.

4.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for admission of additional evidences which could not be produced before the lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also submitted a paper book comprising pages 1 to 108 and submitted that the documents contained therein are crucial for substantiating the genuineness of the loan transactions, which are summarized as under:

ITA No. 113/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 4–

1.

Application under Rule 29B for admission of additional evidences. 2. Letter of authority of the previous consultant. 3. Registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.2019 4. Registered purchases Deed dated 10.05.2010. 5. Registered Construction Agreement dated 10.05.2010 6. Summary of Transaction for Payments against Construction. 7. Bank Statements highlighting relevant entries. 8. Notarized Loan Confirmation of Ms. Sohanlal Shukla-father of the assessee. 9. Notarized Loan Confirmation of Mr. Mahesh Shukla-Uncle of assessee 5. Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6.

From perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee relating to the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) appears to be genuine and therefore the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is condoned. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities Since these documents were not examined by the lower authorities and are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of examining and verifying the additional evidences filed by the assessee and thereafter deciding the issues afresh in accordance with law. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing

ITA No. 113/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 5– Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

7.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 27.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 27.04.2026 MV 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)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →