VINODKUMAR RAMUBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI

ITA 332/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 June 2026AY 2010-1111 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was filed with a delay of 460 days. The assessee cited age, lack of knowledge of online proceedings, and health issues as reasons for the delay. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 22,62,218/- on account of cash and other deposits treated as unexplained income.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided to be sufficient. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained income was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250,Section 253,Section 139(4),Section 44AF

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagsheth, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 13/05/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 28.09.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on 26.12.2017. ITA No.332/SRT/2026 [AY 2010-11]

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →