GEETABEN SUMANBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. ITO WARD-5, VALSAD, VALSAD

First, we take up the appeal in ITA No.243/SRT/2026 against the quantum addition.

The appeal is time-barred by 56 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee is a non-resident and is suffering from severe illness and that the impugned assessment order did not come to the notice of the assessee. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs.19,79,400/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.

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 judgement assessment order passed u/s.144 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a non-resident and is residing in USA. The assessee was not aware of any income-tax proceedings or notices issued by the AO. Therefore, the case of the assessee remained unrepresented before the AO resulting into the impugned addition.

The assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that the assessee has not deposited the due taxes and, hence, the appeal of the assessee was not maintainable.

Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the record. So far as the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the appeal is not maintainable is concerned, the same is not legally correct. When the assessee has disputed the very addition made by the AO, there was no question of depositing the advance tax thereupon on filing the appeal against such addition. The requirement of deposit of advance tax is relating to self-assessed tax and not in relation to the disputed addition. So far as the assessment order is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has duly explained that the assessee being a non-resident and even suffering from sickness was not at all aware of any income-tax proceedings carried out against her. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that she can very well furnish the evidences relating to the source of the deposit in the bank account.

Considering the above submissions, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. It is directed that the assessee will remain vigilant and promptly participate in the assessment proceedings. This appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Now coming to the penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA No.245/SRT/2026,

The impugned penalty of Rs.10,000/- has been levied by the AO for non-compliance of the notice during the assessment proceedings. As observed above, the assessee has very well explained that she was not aware of any income-tax proceedings and even did not receive any notice from the AO. Therefore, the impugned penalty is not leviable and the same is ordered to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Now coming to the penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA No.244/SRT/2026. 10. 1. The assessee, in this appeal, has contested the levy of penalty of Rs.1,97,440/- made u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act. The very basis of the aforesaid penalty is quantum addition made by the AO, however, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in relation to such quantum addition has been set aside and the matter has been restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. Therefore, at this stage, the impugned penalty appeal has no legs to stand upon, hence, the same is ordered to be deleted with the liberty to the AO that he may initiate afresh penalty proceedings, if deemed so fit at the time of passing of de novo assessment order.

With the above observations, the impugned penalty is ordered to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

With the above observation, ITA No.243/SRT/2026 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, whereas ITA Nos.244 & 245/SRT/2026 stand allowed.

""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.