KANZARIYA KALIDAS POPATLAL,CHOTILA vs. THE ITO WARD 1, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 193/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 June 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, noting that the lower authorities' orders were ex parte. A cost of ₹2,500 was imposed on the assessee for negligent conduct.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to a notice under section 148 and did not file a return of income. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee's income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether to grant an opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,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 D. M. Rindani, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 25/06/2026

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. 193/Rjt/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Kalidas Popatbhai Kanjariya The IPO, Ward 1, Surendranagar Gujrat 363001 Near Gurjar Prajapati Wad, Vs. Flvadi Thangadh Chotila Surendranagar Gujrat 36530 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CFPPK3840A (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25/06/2026 30/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement : ORDER Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2013-14, 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 14.03.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 23.10.2018.

2.

The assessee is an individual. Based on the information available with the Department, it was noticed that the assessee had deposited an amount of ₹23,32,100 in the bank account, including cash deposits of ₹9,00,000 and time deposits amounting to ₹2,00,000 in banking company during the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, after obtaining the necessary approval, notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued. However, the assessee did not file any return of income in response thereto. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹29,57,928 to the income of the assessee. 3. Dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. CIT assessee went in appeal where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed and sustained the order of the Assessing Officer on account of continuous non-compliance on six consecutive dates of hearing. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. At the time of hearing before us, the learned AR submitted that since the assessee could not furnish the required compliance before the authorities below, there was a considerable delay in pursuing the appeal before this Tribunal, resulting in a delay of about 992 days in filing the present appeal. It was further submitted that the assessee is now ready to participate in the proceedings and requested that one more opportunity be granted by remanding the issue to the file of authority below. 5. On the other hand, the learned D R opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the conduct of the assessee was deliberate and negligent. It was further prayed that if the delay is condoned, heavy costs may be imposed.

We, after hearing the rival submission of the parties and considering the material available on record, we note that there has been a considerable delay in pursuing the appeal before this Tribunal. However, in the interest of justice, particularly considering that both the orders passed by the authorities below are ex parte orders, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Nevertheless, considering the negligent conduct of the assessee in not participating in the proceedings at the appropriate stage, we impose a cost of ₹2,500, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, and proof of such payment shall be furnished before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the submissions and supporting documents to be filed by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all necessary documents and substantiate the claims without seeking any unnecessary adjournment or causing further delay. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member S

राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 30/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent

3.

CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →