ASHOKKUMAR BABUBHAI BHIMANI,NA vs. ARI, GUJARATVS.ITO WARD 1, NAVSARI, NAVSARI, GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 539/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 June 2026AY 2012-138 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the mistake of the counsel and the principle of substantial justice. The tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the deposits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case for AY 2012-13 was reopened due to cash deposits in a bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated deposits as unexplained income, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee appealed to the ITAT after a delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 10/06/2026Pronounced: 22/06/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, सूरत न्यायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.539/SRT/2026 Assessment-Year:2012-13 Ashokkumar Babubhai Income Tax Officer Bhimani Ward-1, Navsari 201, Suryadarshan बनाम/ Apartment Bhagvati Vs. Society, Shanta Devi Road, Navsari, Gujarat-396445 (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AFMPB9275R Assessee by Shri Chetan Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 10/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement 22/06/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by the order of first-appeal dated 27.07.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 01.12.2017 passed by learned ITO, Ward-1, Navsari [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income- tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee

Page 1 of 8

Ashokkumar Babubhai Bhimani ITA No. 539/Srt/2025 - AY 2012-13 has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

The registry has informed that the present appeal is filed after statutory time and hence time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re- produced for an immediate reference:

Page 2 of 8

Ashokkumar Babubhai Bhimani ITA No. 539/Srt/2025 - AY 2012-13

3.

The reasoning given by assessee was discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue, though dutifully opposed against condonation of delay, but could not rebut the explanation given by assessee. We have considered assessee’s explanation and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause”. The mistake of counsel is a well-recognised ground for condonation of delay as the assessee should not be made to suffer.

We find that section 253(5) of the Act prescribes thus:

Page 3 of 8

Ashokkumar Babubhai Bhimani ITA No. 539/Srt/2025 - AY 2012-13 “(5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period”. Further, long back the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever “substantial justice” and “technical considerations” are opposed to each other, the cause of “substantial justice” must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach.

In a recent judgement in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has condoned delay of 1,537 days while holding so:

"14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation." Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the reasoning advanced by assessee, the provision of section 253(5) and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same.

4.

The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2012-13 u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,49,400/- which was assessed. Subsequently, on the basis of information available with Income-tax Department indicating that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.

Page 4 of 8

Ashokkumar Babubhai Bhimani ITA No. 539/Srt/2025 - AY 2012-13 21,95,000/- in his Bank A/c during the relevant previous year, the AO re- opened assessee’s case u/s 147 through a notice dated 30.03.2017 u/s 148. The AO also issued other statutory notices. The assessee complied with initial notices but when the AO issued final show-cause notice dated 23.11.2017 to assessee asking to explain the source of deposits in Bank A/c, the assessee failed to respond as a result of which the Ld. AO completed assessment treating the deposits of Rs. 27,98,350/- as unexplained/undisclosed income of assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution and did not grant any relief. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

5.

Ld. AR for assessee at first submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed impugned order of first-appeal as ex-parte due to non-prosecution by assessee but the non-prosecution occurred, as narrated in earlier para, due to consultant’s mistake. Thereafter, Ld. AR carried us to Para 2 of assessment-order in which the Ld. AO has mentioned thus: “In response to various notices issued, Shri Kinjal Doshi, ITP, attended and the case was discussed. The submissions filed are kept on record.” This shows that the assessee was having attitude and approach of statutory compliances. However, the assessee was unable to respond to final show-cause notice since the same was given on 23.11.2017 and the assessee was required to file reply by 27.11.2017 within a very short span of time. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given to assessee by way of

Page 5 of 8

Ashokkumar Babubhai Bhimani ITA No. 539/Srt/2025 - AY 2012-13 restoring this matter to the file of Ld. AO for a fresh adjudication. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has collected all required details and documents to explain the deposits in Bank A/c and shall definitely make a proper and effective representation before Ld. AO.

6.

The Ld. DR for revenue, though not opposing the prayer of the assessee for restoration, submitted that the assessee had remained non- responsive to the show-cause notice issued by Ld. AO and all did not attend the hearings granted by Ld. CIT(A), which had constrained the lower authorities to pass ex-parte orders. Further, there is also a delay in filing present appeal. It was, therefore, submitted that while restoring the matter, appropriate cost may be imposed upon assessee and also suitable directions may be given to ensure strict compliance by assessee.

7.

In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of Ld. AO, we restore this matter to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Page 6 of 8

Ashokkumar Babubhai Bhimani ITA No. 539/Srt/2025 - AY 2012-13 8. However, we find that although the assessee has complied initial notices issued by AO but, however, remained non-responsive to the show-cause notice issued. Further, during first-appeal, there were non- compliances to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). Further, there is a delay in filing present appeal also. Therefore, there is an element of lethargy to some extent attributable to assessee. Further, the resources of revenue are involved in dealing assessee’s case afresh. Looking into these aspects, we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by assessee to Income-tax Department through appropriate challan. The assessee shall submit a copy of duly paid challan to Ld. AO during the proceeding of fresh adjudication and shall not claim any credit or refund of such payment in any manner.

9.

This appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose, subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.

Order pronounced in open court on 22/06/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat True Copy दिन ांक /Dated : 22/06/2026 Rajesh/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative

Page 7 of 8

Ashokkumar Babubhai Bhimani ITA No. 539/Srt/2025 - AY 2012-13 (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat Bench, Surat

Page 8 of 8

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →