IBRAHIMIKBAL ISMAIL SIDAT,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NAVSARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 240/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 April 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the AO. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed on technical grounds of limitation due to a 307-day delay. The assessee claimed non-receipt of hearing notices from the AO, leading to the delay and an ex-parte assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering the assessee's explanation for the delay and the merits of the case. Whether the assessment order was passed ex-parte without proper notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CA
Hearing: 22/04/2026Pronounced: 27/04/2026

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 ‘CIT(A)’] dated 30/01/2026 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has taken following grounds of appeal:

“1. Erroneous dismissal of the appeal on technical ground of limitation without adjudicating the merits. The CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal merely on the ground that there was a delay of 307 days in filing the appeal. The expression Asst. Year : 2019-20

"sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act is elastic; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that refusal to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold, and courts should adopt a liberal approach so as to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A) failed to apply this settled law and did not even call for an explanation on the reasons for delay.

2.

Violation of principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording the appellant an opportunity to explain the reasons for delay or to present evidence on the merits. The CIT(A)-NFAC also did not call for any remand report from the Assessing Officer. By refusing to condone the delay and not examining the merits, the CIT(A) denied justice to the appellant.

3.

Assessment order passed ex parte and without considering evidence. The Assessing Officer made the addition under section 69A on an ex parte basis without verifying the source of cash deposits. The appellant had substantial cash on hand from earlier withdrawals and agricultural receipts as shown in the cash ledger cash withdrawn from the bank was Rs.22.40 lakh and agricultural income received was Rs.7.75 lakh; only Rs.12.50 lakh was deposited back into the bank. The AO did not consider these facts and wrongly treated the bank deposits as unexplained.

4.

Exclusion of the Bank Account Deposits of Rs. 12,50,000/- from Assessee's Income The appellant respectfully submits that the addition made to his total income on account of Rs.12,50,000/- deposited in Bank Account No. 15980100018595 is unsustainable in law. The said account is held exclusively in the name of Mrs. Firoja Ibrahimikbal Sidat, the appellant's wife. The appellant has no ownership, control, or involvement in the operations of the said account.

5.

Source of Cash Deposited Cannot Be Attributed to the Assessee The appellant further submits that all cash deposits appearing in the bank account of Mrs. Firoja Ibrahimikbal Sidat pertain solely to her independent financial activities. The appellant has no involvement in the operations or source of funds deposited in the account. Therefore, it is not legally permissible to attribute the source of these deposits to the appellant's income.

6.

The appellant provided ample documentary evidence, including the bank account statement of "Mrs. Firoja Ibrahimikbal Sidat", evidencing the independent nature of the account. The Assessing Officer did not consider this evidence during the assessment proceedings, which leads to an erroneous addition under Section 69A.

7.

Agricultural income is duly supported by land and crop records. The appellant owns agricultural land at village Fudia (Dharampur Taluka) and at village Katalal (Navsari Taluka). He furnished copies of the 7/12 extracts and Form-8A showing ownership/possession, as well as crop sale receipts. These documents establish that he earned agricultural income. The CIT(A) and AO ignored these evidences. Asst. Year : 2019-20

3

8.

Addition of cash deposits in bank is unsustainable. The cash ledger for FY 2018- 19 shows that cash withdrawn from the bank and agricultural income exceeded the amount re-deposited into the bank. Indicating that the deposits represented recycling of cash. Hence, the addition under section 69A is erroneous and should be deleted.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex-parte/ best judgment assessment order passed u/s.144 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing from the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO). That the assessee is a villager and is not conversant with the online income-tax proceedings. He, therefore, has submitted that there was no knowledge to the assessee of the passing of the impugned assessment order and, therefore, a delay of 307 days had occurred in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the above fact of non-receipt of any notice during the assessment proceedings was duly pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal before him and dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, in my view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO, however, subject to a reasonable costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will deposit the aforesaid cost amount within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order and will produce the proof of such deposit before the AO. Subject to fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the impugned Asst. Year : 2019-20

order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for de novo assessment.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27/04/2026. ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member

अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 27/04/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 1. #&थ% / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण 5. सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →