TARABEN CHUNIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 84/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's age and the circumstances leading to the delay, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. This was done to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing, given the substantial addition made to her income.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an 82-year-old senior citizen, filed an appeal with a delay of 105 days due to issues with her tax consultant and subsequent engagement of a new one. The primary issue before the ITAT was whether to condone this delay and hear the appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper notice and opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri P B Parmar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.03.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 84/AHD/2026 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Taraben Chunibhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Vijay Society No. 2, R. V. Ward – 3(1)(4), Desai Road, Vadodara, Vadodara - 390007 Vs. Gujarat - 390001 [PAN – ABFPP4988E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri P B Parmar, AR Revenue by Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.05.2026 O R D E R

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/JCIT(A) Thane, [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 16.07.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

2.

At the outset itself, I have noted that the assessee has delayed in filing the appeal before us by 105 days. The assessee has filed an application, seeking condonation of delay stating that she was a senior citizen aged 82 years and had sought the assistance of a Tax consultant in filing the appeal who had not done the necessary for a very long time, despite persistently asking him to-do so and subsequently, the assessee approached another counsel, who accordingly, took the necessary steps to file the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee has stated the aforesaid

ITA No. 84/Ahd/2026 Taraben Chunibhai Patel Vs. ITO, AY- 2016-17 2 reasons for the delay on oath in a duly notarized affidavit, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:

“I, Taraben Chunibhai Patel, aged 82 years, residing at Vadodara, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-

1.

The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)' for the sake of brevity) under section 250 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17 (hereinafter referred to as the 'year under consideration') was sent on email Id on 16.07.2025 and therefore, appeal before Hon'ble the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'ITAT' for the sake of brevity) was required to be filed on or before 30.09.2025. However, appeal came to be filed before Hon'ble the ITAT on 13.01.2026 and thus, there is a delay of 105 days in filing the appeal before Your Honors. Reasons for such delay are as follows:

a) I most respectfully state and submit that after passing of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), I approached the Tax consultant who was assigned the task of handling the first appeal. He told me that he shall take appropriate steps towards filing of appeal against the same before Hon'ble the ITAT within the statutory time limit. Hence, I was under a bona-fide impression that the concerned Tax Consultant shall do the needful in relation to filing of appeal before Hon'ble the ITAT in timely manner. b) After few weeks, I again inquired with the said Tax Consultant about the status of appeal. He told me that the same is pending and he further assured me that he shall do the needful in relation of filing of appeal at the earliest. c) Somewhere towards the end of September, 2025, I again tried to contact the said Tax Consultant but somehow, he did not respond to my phone calls. After repeated efforts, I could finally meet him in person. Upon inquiring about the status of appeal before Hon'ble the ITAT, he again gave an evasive reply that the same is pending and he again assured me that he shall do the needful in relation of filing of appeal at the earliest. However, I sensed that he, for reasons best known to him, was not interested in filing appeal before Hon'ble the ITAT in my case. Being dissatisfied with his services, I asked him to return my entire file so that I could make suitable arrangements for filing the appeal before Hon'ble the ITAT. He told me that he shall get the file ready in couple of days and send hard copy to me. I was again under a bona-fide impression that he shall send me the hard copy of relevant papers, as promised. However, it so happened that for weeks together, neither did he send me the hard copy of relevant papers, nor did he answer my phone calls. d) Somewhere towards the end of December, 2025, I contacted another Senior Chartered Accountant soliciting his advice in relation to the issue on hand. He advised me to reset the password of the income-tax portal

ITA No. 84/Ahd/2026 Taraben Chunibhai Patel Vs. ITO, AY- 2016-17 3 consequent to which, I shall have access to the orders passed by the authorities as well as all other relevant papers. I agreed to his advice. Thereafter, the said Chartered Accountant took necessary steps vis-à- vis resetting the password of the income-tax portal. Once that was done, he downloaded all the relevant papers for the year under consideration. e) Since I was satisfied with his services and professional approach, I asked him to take necessary steps towards filing of appeal before Hon'ble the ITAT. He suggested name of an advocate based at Ahmedabad. I agreed to his proposal of assigning the task of appeal before Hon'ble the ITAT to the said Advocate. Consequently, the Chartered Accountant emailed necessary papers to the Advocate based in Ahmedabad. The said Advocate, in turn, prepared appeal memo and sent the same to me for my signature. Shortly thereafter, appeal came to be filed before Hon'ble the ITAT. In the said process, there occurred some delay in filing appeal before Hon'ble the ITAT. 2. Under the circumstances stated above, delay in filing the appeal is on account of reasons stated hereinabove Hence, it is prayed to Your Honors that there is good and sufficient reason to condone the delay and therefore the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be decided on merits. 3. At this stage, I further clarify that as stated hereinabove, I had assigned the task of handling first appeal to a Tax Consultant and I was under a bona-fide impression that he shall make necessary submissions and furnish relevant documentary evidences in support of my case. Further, because of my old age, I could not proactively follow up with him about the status of appeal. It so happened that for reasons best known to the said Tax Consultant, neither did he take steps vis-à-vis furnishing necessary submissions and relevant documentary evidences before the first appellate authority, nor did he take steps of even filing the appeal before Hon'ble the ITAT after dismissal of first appeal. Under such circumstances, I was compelled to discontinue his services and avail services of another Chartered Accountant after dismissal of first appeal. Thus, non- compliance before first appellate authority was essentially attributable to erstwhile Tax Consultant who was assigned the task of handling first appeal. At this stage, I also clarify that my Chartered Accountant has verified income-tax portal and perusal of the same indicates that no separate 'Statement of Facts' and 'Grounds of Appeal' have been filed by erstwhile Tax Consultant though it has been stated so in Form 35. 4. In view of the peculiar facts (as narrated hereinabove), I earnestly request Hon'ble the Bench to decide the appeal on merits in the larger interest of justice. I, Taraben Chunibhai Patel, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of aforesaid paras of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge; nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false. So help me God.”

3.

The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of the delay.

ITA No. 84/Ahd/2026 Taraben Chunibhai Patel Vs. ITO, AY- 2016-17 4 4. We have considered the contentions of the Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee and we find it a fit case for condoning the delay of 105 days in filing of the present appeal before us. The assessee being a very senior citizen, aged 82 years, clearly she has not been guided properly by her Tax consultant which has resulted in the delay in filing of appeal before me. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case therefore, we condone the delay of 105 days in filing of the present appeal before me.

5.

Taking up the appeal for hearing, the grounds raised by the assessee as under:

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing ex-parte order and that too in gross violation of section 250(6) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming addition of Rs.67,00,000/-made u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. Such an act is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest u/s. 234A/B/C of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.

6.

At the outset itself, it was pointed out that the addition made in the case of the assessee pertain to unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 67,00,000/- taken during the year, the genuineness of which remained to be proved. The addition was made u/s.68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order.

ITA No. 84/Ahd/2026 Taraben Chunibhai Patel Vs. ITO, AY- 2016-17 5 He contended that the assessee could not participate in the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) since all the notices were sent on e-mail Id, while the assessee had requested notices to be served physically to it in form No.35 of Form for filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was, therefore, requested that the appeal be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) to be heard afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

Considering the averments of the assessee as above and noting that she is a senior citizen of 82 years of age and the addition made in her hands is substantial, amounting to Rs. 67,00,000/- as opposed to loss returned by her, I am of the view, that in the interest of justice, the assessee be granted fresh opportunity of hearing by the Ld.CIT(A). In view of the same, we restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 19/05/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) Accountant Member Dated – 19 May, 2026 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT

ITA No. 84/Ahd/2026 Taraben Chunibhai Patel Vs. ITO, AY- 2016-17 6 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER,

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

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →