BHARATBHAI THAKARSHIBHAI LIMBASIYA,KUVADAVA ROAD vs. ITO WD 2(1)(1), RKT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 887/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 June 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 based on information about substantial high-value transactions in the assessee's bank account and remuneration received from a partnership firm.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to delay without adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 08/06/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 887/Rjt/2025 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Bharatbhai Thakarshibhai Limbasiya, ITO WD 2(1)(1), Rajkot, Plot No 17/2 Shri Shivranjni Park Street Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race No 2 80ft Road Kuvadava Road Rajkot, Course Ring Road, Rajkot, Rajkot, Gujarat-360003 Gujarat, 360001, �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AHSPL6455B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 08/06/2026 09/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement : ORDER Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2016-17, is directed against the order under section-250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 24.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147, r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act, dated 09.03.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income of the assessment year 2016-17. Based on the information available with the department, it was noticed that the assessee had undertaken the substantial

ITA No.887/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2016-17 ] Bharatbhai Thakarshibhai Limbasiya v. ITO

high value transaction aggregating to Rs.50,50,000/- in the saving bank account maintained by him. It was further noticed that assessee had received remuneration of partnership firm amounting to Rs.59,500/-. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated after obtaining requisite approval from the competent authority. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued however assessee failed to response to the said notice. Subsequently, notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act also remained uncomplied with. In absence of any compliance from the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144, r.w.s. 147 of the Act and treated the bank deposit of Rs.50,50,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and the remuneration received from the partnership firm amounting to Rs.59,500/- was also brought to tax. Consequently, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.51,09,500/-.

3.

Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 127-days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. Even before this Tribunal also the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 19- days in this connection, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reasons for such delay. We consider the prayer of the assessee find that there is a reasonable cause for delay for filing the appeal, accordingly delay of 127-days before the Ld. CIT(A) and 19-days before this Tribunal in filing the appeal are condoned. We are not adjudication on merit.

4.

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR stated that the assessee could not properly represent his case before the Lower Authority and requested that one more opportunity may be granted in order to substantial its claim with the supporting evidences.

Page 2 of 3

ITA No.887/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2016-17 ] Bharatbhai Thakarshibhai Limbasiya v. ITO

5.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authority below but left the issue to be discretion of the bench.

6.

We have heard, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the appeal was dismissed without proper adjudication of the issues involved. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the substantial justice, we are of the considered view that assessee should be afforded one more opportunity to present his case. The Ld. CIT(A) shall+ thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

7.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

8.

However, considering non-cooperative, conduct of the assessee before the Lower Authorities, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The assessee shall deposit the said amount in the Prime Minister’s Relief funds and furnish proof of such payment before the Ld. CIT(A).

9.

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

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 09/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member //True Copy// राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 09/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT By order 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →