NITINKUMAR SHERASIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 669/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 70-day delay. The assessee contended that the delay was due to reasons beyond their control and that they had a strong case on merits regarding additions made under Section 56(2)(x).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to a delay, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, AR
Hearing: 21/04/2026Pronounced: 13/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.669/Ahd/2026 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Nitinkumar Sherasiya, Income Tax Officer, 11 Ramdev Estate, बनाम/ Ward-3(3)(5), v/s. B/H. maruti Marble, Ahmedabad Gota, Ahmedabad-382325 �थायी लेखा सं./PAN: DNKPS2994 K (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�त् यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jinesh Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 13/05/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the 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 05.01.2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-2021.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“…1. The Appellate Order passed by ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the I.T. Act dated 05-01-2026 is against the principle of natural justice, bad and invalid in law. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and acted against the principle of natural justice in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing appeal of 70 days without adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised by appellant on merit.

ITA No.669/Ahd/2026 Nitinkumar Sherasiya vs. ITO Asst.Year 2020-21 2

3.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and acted against the principle of natural justice in not taking into account the submissions and documentary evidences furnished by the appellant during the course of Appellate Proceeding. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law, on facts and acted against the principle of natural justice in confirming the additions made by the AO by dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the matter on merit. 5. The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal…”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), to submit that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in limine holding that the same was barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained that a delay of 70 days had occurred in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee and that a separate application for condonation of delay had been filed before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the said application.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits as the Assessing Officer had made the addition by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act observing that the purchase consideration of land was less than the market rate. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the title of the land in question was disputed and, therefore, the assessee had purchased the land at a lesser rate. However, this fact remains to be examined by the lower authorities. He, therefore, submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Considering the above submissions and after hearing the Ld. DR, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be well served, if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). However, for the lapses on the part of the assessee, the assessee can be burdened with reasonable costs. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of

ITA No.669/Ahd/2026 Nitinkumar Sherasiya vs. ITO Asst.Year 2020-21 3 this order. The assessee shall furnish proof of such payment before the Ld. CIT(A). Subject to fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) shall give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and, if so deem it necessary, may call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the evidences furnished by the assessee or obtain a report from the DVO, if so required, and thereafter decide the appeal of the assessee on merits.

6.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ( Sanjay Garg ) Accountant Member Judicial Member (True Copy) अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 13/05/2026 Manish, Sr. P.S. आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , गाड� फाईल /Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

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

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →